Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through October 05, 2022	25		10/17 09:12pm
	Archive through December 06, 2022	25		12/07 08:35am
	Archive through January 21, 2025	25		03/13 11:14pm

I guess this section is the best place to put this question as it goes back to the birth of the game.

I was reading the chapter “How Star Fleet Battles Happened” in the book “Zones of Control” and I wanted to ask a question about the minimum range requirements of Photons and Disruptors. In the chapter SVC writes about overloaded weapons the following:

“Overloaded weapons (twice the power, twice the damage, limited range) were a non-television concept that I added to force combat to shorter ranges and keep the ships from endlessly poking at each other for hours without actually damaging each other.”

So if the game was not originally designed with overloaded weapons that hit automatically in the ranges that non-overloaded weapons could not be fired was the minimum range that photons and disruptors could not be fired at there from the start?

If not what were the chances of a non-overloaded Photon to get a hit at Range 0-1?

What were the chances of a non-overloaded Disruptor to get a hit at Range 0?

In both cases was feedback damage generated by the non-overloaded weapons being fired at these closer ranges?

I am assuming that the minimum range requirements were there from before overloaded weapons were added as otherwise people would just try to close to Range 0 to cause the most damage.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 13, 2025 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Something that's always bugged me...

Why are the Federaion satisfied with inferior fighters when they depend on them so heavily in the late-war period? The F-14 and F-15 are both excellent, but too complex and expensive to deploy in any significant numbers. The primary Federation late-war fighter is the F-18 and (to compare like-against-like, and best available version of each) the F-18C is markedly inferior to the Klingon Z-YC and Kzinti TADSC. It is slightly inferior in dogfighting ability (not very important, in my experience) and has two fewer damage points (10 for the F-18C versus 12 for the Z-YC and TADSC - rather more important). But where it really falls behind is in drone capability. The Fed has the same drone carriage as the Klingon and Kzinti, and the same Type-III capability. But it is clearly inferior in drone launch rate once the Type-IIIs have been epended This is described in (J4.24) DRONE FIRING RATES, especially (J4.242). Type-IIIs are in short supply and using just Type-is and (maybe) Type-VIs, the Klingons and Kzinti are distinctly superior. And both those empires also employ PFs.

So... why did the Federation put up with this? I could see them settling for F-18Cs as their most important (by numbers) late-war fighter if they also deployed PFs. The Thunderbolt is, in my opinion, superior to the Klingon G-1 PF. But to not deploy PFs, and to make up for it by making their primary fighter... not as good as the Klingon counterpart...

I don't expect anything to change at this point. But I am still curious as to... WHY?

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, March 13, 2025 - 07:00 pm: Edit

I went and looked at my Fed SSDs.

I understand that one reason for the Federation not using PFs. Was the loss of life for the small ship crews. What about loss of fighter pilots. Then we understand they had remote control for fighters. That means the loss of life fits.

Then we have how are the fighters used. The Federation built a fleet around the CVAs. The CVA and its 3 or 4 escorts. Then a CVs and 2 or 3 escorts. The escorts then are the Federation battle group. 7 ships or 9 ships making 6 or 8 from command. CVA is flagship making 5 or 7. Myself I would go with min number of escorts 5 or 6. The CVA as flagship. The CV and then escorts 1 plus 5 escorts minus 1 for carrier group total command used 5. then bring 5 CAs (various types.)

5 CAs (size class 3 cruisers) 20 photons and 8 more from the carriers. 28 photons on heavy ships.
standard loads if half it 112 damage. if Prox 56
if only a third hit 72 standards. Those photons are going to mangle a ship every other turn. Reload turns the ships will slow max ECM.

The fighter groups will launch a •••• load of drones. Those drones will force the enemy to stay away from the fed ships. The fighters only need to stay on station with the ships. Those gatlings on the fighters will chew up incoming drones or plasma. Even if using the lighter fighters with PH3s They will still chew up seekers.

As for attacking fixed positions. long range photons plus a huge drone barrage. As many drones as are carried the base will run out of Shuttles.

You do not need a super powerful fighter for that roll. The Feds will also have more fighters in a fleet action then the Klingons, Lyrons or Romulans. Non historically the Kzinti would have more fighters than the Feds.

The other would be cost. The Federation could make a lot more of the cheaper fighters. The more expensive fighters with the PH-G. Hard to make a lot of those. Would be the other reason.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, March 13, 2025 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Because:

1. the F-18 was intended as an inexpensive attrition fighter, not a true superiority fighter, and its deployment reflects this; and

2. they also have the F-101 series heavy fighter starting in Y176, as well as the excellent F-111 the following year. Both have improved launch rates, internal bays, and 6-round ADD launchers, and both are festooned with phasers (including a type-G on the F-111).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 13, 2025 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Gregory and Jessica,

I don't buy it. The Federation has the most robust economy in Alpha. If the far more cash-strapped Kzinti can afford the (superior) TADSC, surely the Feds can afford better fighters - in large numbers - than the F-18C. Maybe not large numbers of F-14s or F-15s, but something better than what they have.

---

Quote:

The fighter groups will launch a •••• load of drones.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 14, 2025 - 06:05 am: Edit

The F18C is designed to be what it is and designed to work the way it does. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean we will EVER give the Feds a "better" fighter. The F18C is just fine. You're not going to get a better one so quit trying to lay the groundwork for that argument.

Why did the US have the worst light machinegun in WWII? (That being the BAR, an excellent automatic rifle but a pathetic failure of an LMG.) Why was the Sherman so inferior to the Panther? Indeed, the original Shermans with their dry ammo racks, combustible reputation, a short barrel low-energy cannon, and 50mm armor were pathetic. The later Fireflies were somewhat better and almost the equal of the Pz4H, but even the Jumbo was barely adequate against the big cats. If the Germans could afford the Panzer-IVH the Americans would surely have been able to afford a better tank than the M4E3. The M10 was a joke compared to the StuG3. Nothing that flew could beat an Me262 once it got away from its runway. Surely the US could have afforded a true jet fighter? Surely the US could have afforded a better towed anti-tank gun that that joke of a 57mm.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, March 14, 2025 - 12:30 pm: Edit

The Sherman wasn't totally useless. The US was producing so many that sheer mass was enough.

But I do agree that the 76mm gun should have been universal.

As for the ME262, it had the problem of unreliable engines, lose one and that P51 could catch you. And you have to go back to your base eventually and hope the Allies aren't amusing themselves strafing it...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, March 14, 2025 - 12:31 pm: Edit

So noted about the F-18C.

But the aviation nerd in me feels compelled to note that, regarding U.S. jet fighters in WWII, a handfull (maybe two, maybe four, depending on source) of Lockheed P-80 Shooting Stars had arrived in Europe before VE Day, and even flew reconnaisance missions over Italy.

The planes were ready but the operational squadrons had not been formed yet. But since the only thing that could threaten them, the Me-262, was not deployed to Italy, there was virtually no chance (other than a bizarre fluke) of the P-80s being shot down on these reconnaisance missions.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, March 14, 2025 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Also the BAR isn't really a "light machine gun;" it is a full sized "Battle Rifle" akin to the later FAL. Though it was used as a LMG stand in.

Our LMG was the M1919 A6. Which wasn't very good

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, March 14, 2025 - 05:47 pm: Edit

Alan:

The F16C is 8 BPV (4 Economic). The Klingon Z-YC and Kzinti TADSC are both 12 BPV (6 Economic). Much like the American Sherman vs the German Panzer IV, Panther, and Tiger, that robust Federation economy can afford to field a *lot* more F16Cs than the Klingons can Z-YCs.

As Stalin famously said, "Quantity has a quality of its own."

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, March 14, 2025 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Oh, and as for the P-80: it was a "jet fighter", but lacked the swept wings of a true jet fighter (and suffered badly for that lack).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, March 14, 2025 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Jessica,

But you're talking about the F16C, a planet-based fighter. My post was about the F18C, the primary Fed late-war carrier-based fighter.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, March 14, 2025 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Well, one reason for using the F18's was space on the carrier, both the F14/F15 are oversized (rated 1+) and take up more space, meaning getting on a 'normal' carrier (outside the CVA/CVB) would mean having fewer of them actually on board or using the overcrowded rules until combat losses show up ...

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, March 15, 2025 - 09:50 am: Edit

Alan: Ah, fair. For some reason, I'd read F16C.

I shall admit to some confusion as to why the F16C has the same BPV as the Z-YC and TADSC, when it has two fewer damage points, a lower dogfight rating, and a lower launch rate per (J4.242). I suspect that it comes down to the large granularity of the BPV scale when one gets down to shuttlecraft; given the step up from the base F18 that the F18B represents (+1 BPV), the addition of two special rails on the F18B (which must cost +2 BPV per (J4.233)), and the C-refit in the F18C (set a +1/2 BPV per rail in (R1.F8)), there's just no wiggle room here, short of an increase in cost for a vast range of superiority fighters (which would be problematic at this late stage, particularly as the BPV cost for the F14 was among the first set when BPV got its major overhaul in Designers Edition Expansion 2, was scaled against extant warships at that time, and all subsequent fighters had their BPVs adjusted around them).

And despite the lesser damage rating, the base F18 remains a bit better than its Y173 contemporaries (HAAS and Z-V), given its additional type-III phaser and two light rails, all three have the same base BPV of 8. Again, large granularity at this scale will result in things like this.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, March 16, 2025 - 04:53 pm: Edit

The poster child for this "BPV can get wonky at such low numbers" problem is the Gorn G-12 and G-18B. They are literally identical in every attribute, but the G-12 is 10 BPV and the G-18B is 11 BPV.

It is what it is, and it isn't likely to change at this point in the game's history.

In the case of the F-18, believe me, I've tried over the years. It didn't change then and it isn't going to change now. It is what it is.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 11:47 am: Edit

Another "Why" question...

The background text makes clear that all first generation X-ships were based on older standard-technology designs.^* But why did the various powers all decide on that path? Given that about two decades lapse between the first X-ships and the first X2-ships, I would have expected at least a few experiments with completely new designs; designs intended from the beginning to make the most efficient use of X-technology. But that never seems to have happened.


^*There are a couple of "kind of..." exceptions to this. The Fed DD has a single centerline warp engine but the DDX swaps that for a pair of warp engines. And the Tholians in Module X1R receive a "real" HDWX even though they never built a standard-tech HDW. But even these "exceptions" are "kind of" based on pre-X-tech designs. (R2.202) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DESTROYER (DDX) states that the DDX was "... based on the unbuilt new destroyer which was evolved (in a different direction) into the new light cruiser." And in Module R12 the Tholians receive a "conjectural" HDW that wasn't actually built because the small size of the Tholian destroyer made an HDW non-viable until X-tech enabled sufficient miniaturization for the HDWX to really be built. But even before X-tech, the Tholians conducted a "design study" for an HDW. So the Fed DDX and Tholian HDWX were still not "brand new" designs. They were based on pre-X-tech designs that didn't get built.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Alan, very good question.

All I can suggest is “form follows function.”

Or, alternatively, it followed the path of least resistance.

Inventing a NEW mouse trap is hard work.

Upgrading an existing design, comparatively easier.

Unless someone has a better idea?,

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I agree that "form follows function". But the form that best performs a given function will change with technology. Let me give an example from my own personal background, military aviation.

In World War I, the dominant "form" for fighter aircraft was a skeletal-frame, canvas-skinned biplane. Yes, there were a few tripanes (Sopwith Triplane, Fokker DR1) and monoplanes (Fokker E1, Fokker D8). But the biplane proved to be the most efficient over all. This was a function of engine power. Given the limited power available, a biplane simply gave the best compromise between weight, drag, structural strength, and lift.

By World War II, things had changed. The order-of-magnitude increase in engine power^* made a metal-hulled monoplane clearly superior, though biplanes persisted in some limited roles.

With the advent of jet propulsion, the optimum form changed again. The vast majority of propeller-driven aircraft were straight-winged because that was better for the speed range in which they operated. But almost all jet fighters had swept wings because jet engines pushed their operating speeds into a range in which straight wings had problems.

Nor is engine power the only technological improvement that might result in a form change. Though the differences in form between a "stealth" aircraft like the F-22 or F-35 and "fourth generation" fighters like the F-15, F-16, or F-18 are less obvious than the differences between biplane and monoplane, the differences are definitely there.

So it seems to me at least plausible that, given the tech changes between standard-tech and X-tech, a hull form optimized for the latter might look different than a hull form optimized for the former. And a ship optimized with the late hull form might offer better performance (or perhaps similar performance in a less expensive package) than a ship that simply incorporated the new technology into an older, sub-optimal hull form.


^*At the start of WW1, fighter aircraft engines produced (ball park figure) about 100 horsepower. By the end of the war, some engines were pushing twice that figure; 200 HP. At the start of WW2, the top fighters like the Spitfire I and Me-109 E produced about 1000 HP. Some of the late war fighters like the F4U and Hawker Tempest comfortably exceeded 2000 HP.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 05:50 pm: Edit

The biggest driver that I see was the General War. From WW II note that the German HE 162, HE 280, the British Meteor, and the American P80 all had straight wings similar in form to the piston engine aircraft of the time. The sweep on the German ME 262 and Japanese Kikka, were a step in the right direction, but were minor, and not really comparable to later front line aircraft.

They had the new equipment, and used cutting edge designs for when they were built. X2 should show true X form factors for ships.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 08:16 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

They had the new equipment, and used cutting edge designs for when they were built.

---

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Note that it is easier to upgrade than innovate, but when the upgrade isn't preforming as thought, innovation then kicks in to improve the performance (hopefully, sometimes the expected exceeds the actual) …

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 10:15 pm: Edit

I have a meta-game reason. People expect Federation ships to look like Federation ships. Therefore, they follow the same form as they go forward in time and get more advanced. Same for all of the other empires.

For an in-game reason, I'd say it is because of the need for rapid development. When the Romulans created the Hawks, or when the Federation and ISC developed their unified fleet designs, they all had time to explore, experiment, and develop. With X technology, they were being almost entirely reactive and had no time to really explore and try new things. They had to rely on what they knew worked and build from there.

Now, I would hope that any prospective X2 designs would be able to have more time to reflect and explore new paths. But, it'll all still run into the meta-game problem that the empires' ships need to look like they have before.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Mike,

Regarding Fed ships looking like Feds, note the last paragraph in my 8:16 PM post.

As far as "... they were being almost entirely reactive and had no time to really explore and try new things" is concerned, that certainly makes sense for the earliest X-ships that appeared during the General War. I'm not sure it holds for the period of the ISC Pacification.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 18, 2025 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Alan, exhaustion would explain that period of history.

Seriously, I do not see any need for "new hull designs to incorporate X1-tech." I just don't. X1 tech was designed to plug-and-play in existing ships. As such, existing hulls (of which endless wartime leftovers are available) are all you need. Why would anyone spent the money to invent a new hull design just so you can stick in X1 when you can stick X1 into the existing surplus hulls?

Can you show me anything about X1 tech that would benefit from a different hull form providing different firing arcs?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, April 19, 2025 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Well, I wasn't primarily thinking in terms of different firing arcs. And, speaking hypothetically, some empire might spend the money to invent a new hull design if it could get enhanced performance, compared to installing X1 technology in existing hulls. You could apply radar absorbent materials to "4th generation" fighters like F-16s or FA-18s and reduce their radar cross sections somewhat. And this does in fact happen to some extent. But these planes still have much larger RCS than planes like the F-22 or F-35, which are shaped differently than the older jets.

I'm not proposing this. But speaking hypothetically, suppose Federation engineers determined that using the latest technology they could design a cruiser that could handle five X-tech photon torpedoes, with no shock effects. But an existing CC saucer could not be modified to handle the strain. The new saucer might look superficially similar to an existing CX saucer from the outside but would require radically different internal structure, perhaps to account for things like dissipation of a much greater amount of waste heat. And this new saucer would require a redesign of the lower hull as well. This new design (let's call it a BCX) would look superfically similar to a CX, in the same way that an F-35 looks superficially similar to an F-16. It's still recognizably the same "sort" of thing. Nevertheless, it is a new design. And its superior capabilities might well justify the expense involved in the R&D necessary to make it work.

Again, that's not a proposal. It's a purely hypothetical example of how a new design optimized for the new technology might enable better performance.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 19, 2025 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Yes, I understand you point, (and the caution was cute! .

That said, pausing a moment to consider the “What If…”

Five standard photon torpedoes (at 2 warp energy points each, )would require 10 warp energy points (2*5=10). Full standard Overloads, thus (6*5=30) warp energy points.

If, just grasping for a straw here, you used a GSC hull (because the GSC has more internal SSD boxes than a CA) and you ***could*** build a BC(L) saucer with 5 Photons…

Well, imputing the warp power requirements, and a normal GW era movement rate of 22 hexes per SFB turn, (22+30=52 warp points) minimum.

Let us assume that house keeping (life support+shields+active fire control.). Harder since we have not defined everything, and we are limited to a size class 3 hull, hummm.

Well, nice exercise.

This monster should be saved for the Scary Ships Contest.

Funny, the power of a B-10 Battleship squeezed into a large Cruiser hull, with a DNL alpha strike.

Should sell like hotcakes or hot dogs with all the fixings!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 19, 2025 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Five photons is called "breaking the game". You might as well throw out all engineering sense and do anything you want. Have fun, but don't bring it here.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, June 19, 2025 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Alan, I've read your recent questions and have a different take on things.

First, even though the Federation has a more robust economy to afford R&D, R&D usually discovers more about what doesn't work than what does work. Thomas Edison is said to have made about 1000 unsuccessful experiments before finally inventing a long-lasting light bulb. An in SFU example is the B-10 for which is said, "Ultimately, the completed B10s would have about six thousand tons of metal framework that they did not really need, but which was too expensive to remove."

Second, money isn't always the answer or a consideration. During WWII, as a reductio ad absurdem argument, the US economically could have afforded to deploy squadrons of F-35s.

Then there's a third argument that R&D made in one direction finds a use in another. It just may be that technology gained in PF research was useful in the production of the Z-YC and TADSC.

All three of these reasons also work for the X-Tech subject as well.


Mike Grafton, The tankers of WWII would not universally agree that the 76mm gun was superior to the 75mm gun. The shell of the 76mm lost about 50% of its explosive capacity in order to make it robust enough to be fired from the cannon.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, June 20, 2025 - 03:18 pm: Edit

John,

The discussions seem kind of OBE ("Overtaken By Events", not "Order of the British Empire", because that would be silly...) since SVC has expressed that he is not interested in either an "improved F-18" or first generation X-ships that are not based on standard-tech hull designs. But I will give the brief answer that I think your points, while true, are probably "neutral" regarding whether an improved F-18 or a new-design X-ship ought to exist. It does not seem (to me) that they support either the contention that such ships should exist, or the contention that they should not.

I could give some specific examples if you want. But really this seems to be a dead horse.