Archive through September 07, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module J3: Back in the Cockpit:
Archive through September 07, 2004
Yeah-- I was thinking that to-- I'm not a general F&E player, but could you then break up escort groups? (I don't believe you can right now).
Stealth and X fighters might be a good idea-- BUT, we run into the problem that if you can do it with fighters, why not PF's? (Maybe opening the room for XJ1-- the X attrition units? 
). More seriously, that might actually be a negative point-- I know some players who liked the idea of the X ships because it hopefully did away with all the attrition units. To them, giving every race an x-fighter might be a step backwards.
One idea-- very short ranged, powerful drones for fighters-- "Bombs" that while inaccurate, carry quite a punch. It seems odd that nobody though about taking all the systems that keep drones flying for so long... (Of course, many potential game breakers here-- mainly in giving all the drone using races Stinger-X equivelants...).
For our impossible unit-- maybe energy using fighters a'la the Hivers? Nice idea but too expensive/dangerous/maitenance intensive?
The biggest problem is that there is little distance between fighters and PF's-- at least i the sense that you have to be very careful about any improvements, because you risk making fighters effective enough so that it calls into doubt the official history-- that PF's became the dominant attrition warfare unit of the last five years of the general war and thereafter.
One thought-- maybe we DON'T have enough for either fighters or PF's to have thier own module-- maybe it needs to be combined into one "attrition unit" module?
Cgray45: For your `bombs' idea, I'm thinking of something like a one-space RALAD. That is, this would be to a type-I (type-IV?) what a RALAD is to a type-VI. Same range and to-hit as ADDs, but maybe damage 2d6 for a one-spacer and 4d6 for a two-spacer. That's basically an anti-drone scaled up to damage ships. They will always do less damage than a drone (just as a RALAD against a fighter is always less than a type-VI), will often miss, but cannot be stopped by drone defenses. It's a way to penetrate late-war Aegis and stuff. --T. Kinias 5 Sep 2004.
Another way to look at it would be that this is to a drone what bolting is to plasma -- inaccurate and less damage, but a direct-fire option.
BTW, they could probably be used on ships but only in G-racks (too big for ADD racks, other racks can't stand the stress of launch).
Jswile: I suspect Sgt G is right about the scout escorts -- it's a great idea for fighting SW users but has huge F&E ramifications. You would drastically increase the EW capacity of late-war carrier battle lines without really losing any COMPOT.
Charles,
Isn't that the point of heavy weapons on fighters? Comparing SFB fighter weapons to real fighter weapons we have:
Phaser = cannon
Drone = missiles
Photon = bombs
All come in varying warhead sizes and are disigned for a specific task.
Maybe J3 should be like the recent module R8 and R9 with system defense fighters/ships and conjectural fighters/ships.
System defense is something I've considered as well. Bombers were the big ones but what about smaller fighters that have limited space faring capabilities (e.g. never leave the system).
Superfast, small, come in swarms, and realatively lightly armed (2xI+2xVI drones, 1 P-3, 7-8 damage, speed 20+ (engines good for more limited times than other true fighters). They are no good stratigically (can't even lash out at a passing fleet) but great for planetary defense.
In F&E you trade a gain if fighter factors for the planet for the inability to strike out from the planet.
I also have a new fighter (revolutionary in design) I'm tweaking. I'll say this, it is very different without being an X-Fighter.
When looking at this, I propose we put a few concepts in order. First of all, in terms of new designs, weap9ons or McGuffins, we have the following categories:
1. Pre general war-- systems developed at the beginning of the fighter era, which either stick around for the entire GW, or are made obsolete.
Viability: Low. There's been so much done, that it's very difficult to think of somethign that would be interesting, and not game breaking-- especially given the need to track with F&E.
2. General war Pre-180. The golden years of fighters, before PF's. Lots of attempts to one-up the enemy, lots of attrition warfare.
Viability: Low-Medium. You can assume there were many one-off expiriments, perhaps ideas that didn't work out, but again, anything GENERAL runs into the problems of trying to keep in the strategic balance. Any conjectural units like XDN's would be good here-- this was when fighters recieved the lions share of money.
3. General War late war: Having to share R&D with both X-ships and PF's, fighters are pushed out of the limelight, but are still very important units in this period. Attempts to keep up with PF's are predominant, especially before it's accepted that that is impossible.
Viability: Medium-- while we can do stuff with fighters, Its pretty much assumed that fighters do not recieve the majority of money-- the megafighter concept establishes the upper end of upgrades.
4. ISC conflict and Andromedon invasion.
IN this period we see first, an end to the general war, and then, a new general war, but one in which there is some degree of technology sharing and unity among the national governments.
Viability: High-- this period is very vague compared to the general war, so there is a tremendous amount of innovation possible-- and at this point, governments are spending money on anything that can give them an edge against an enemy that can outspeed conventional starships via the RTN-- thsu, fighters and PF's are quite literally the only option for some worlds.
6. Post Andro.
Until X2 comes out, this period cannot be developed.
Well, one other thing my fighter has is the mega systems built in. This, being built from the ground up, provides for a better DF rating among other things.
Perhaps there could be a sort of mini-bay like on the new Euro-Fighter. One or two spaces.
Possibly-- but what year would it come in service? I think we could be very tolerant of Y186+ new systems-- the time period isn't as defined, and the opposiion is...considerable.
Some fighters have 2 seat versions. How about a 2 seater fleet defense-assault fighter. The FA-18C: The 2 PH-3 firing arc is changed to either 360 or LS-RS and 1 ew pod is added. Drone loadout stays 4 type 1s and 2 special rails
The A-10 is a single space (box) heavy fighter that does not require a mech link. Build an A-10F. Speed is 15,the Ph-3 firing arcs are FH-RH, and add 2 type IVs.
A CVL would carry 6 of each and have one DWA escort configured to service one type in each of its 2 shuttle racks.
The standard mega-system could be added or the one Loren is proposing could be used to further enhance capabilities
Cgray45: As you mentioned above (your 16h01 post), X era has always had something of an `attritionless' flavour. Of course, we now have Module Y for the traditionalists, but I think we should be careful about too-powerful attrition units that will require ramping up X ships even more to compensate...
Way back when, Op. Unity was completed without megafighters, without DNHs, IIRC even without BCHs -- just refitted DNs, CAs, stock fighters, and a few X-ships. (``Back when I was a lad, we used to take on a Dominator with nothing but an F-4 and a type-IS drone -- that's a type-VI for you young'uns...'')
Marcin R.: Personally, I always thought of SFB fighters as being similar to modern Zodiac rafts or Vietnam-era PBRs, given the comparisons in size, speed, and weaponry of SFB fighters versus the warships.
Loren K.: "Superfast, small, come in swarms, and realatively lightly armed (2xI+2xVI drones, 1 P-3, 7-8 damage, speed 20+."
Oh look it's the F-8M. (or something like that.) Anyway, you can give any older fighter a Mega-pack and it becomes a cheap, reasonably fast fighter that would work for planetary defense.
(Necromancy): Someone talked about a Federation equivalent to the AS, the "F-1 Fury". I'd think that the Feds wouldn't be so hot on a shuttle that could launch drones but not control them; they didn't think of drones as being a primary weapons system, but as a backup for the photons. So they wouldn't want to tie up the ship's control systems with those silly drones. I'd expect an early Fed fighter to have maybe one Type-I and one Type-VI; it can't control the Type-VI, it can only launch it when the drone can immediately get a warp lock-on. It can control the Type-I. Maybe it could also have an endurance rating (the Feds didn't quite get the engines right on their first go-around.) F-1B: Two Type-VI (that it can control) and one Type-I, no more endurance problem, used for about two months until the F-4 came on line.
Have we mentioned mixed squadrons yet? Maybe the "12 drone fighters of the same class" wasn't as prevalent as we've seen so far. Some squadrons might have picked up an assault fighter or two, or been led by a heavy fighter. Feds, with their dizzying array of fighter types, might have wound up with four different classes of fighter in the same carrier (or maybe an ace transferred in from another unit, and brought his F-14 with him). This would be a BPV cost to convert ready racks from the "stock" type to an alternate type, and then you trade in the stock fighter and buy the new one. You could also convert a pair of racks to the race's heavy fighter (though Feds could only take the A-20, the F-111 stays on mech links.)
Joseph C.: Maybe your "fleet defense fighter" could be another kind of Mega-pack. i.e. the "D" pack with the usual Megafighter characteristics, but the weapon upgrades add a pair of Type-VI rails (and those rails can launch at anything in the FX arc) and a 360-degree ph-3. In fact, that could turn into an idea: variant mega-packs. Megas with ph-2, Megas with heavy weapons, Megas with fewer weapons but more armor. MRS Megas (so you get an EW unit that can match the squadron's speed without using packs but doesn't sacrifice mission capability or maneuverability to do it.) "Blitz" Megas that add 4xType-VI instead of 2xType-I, and the ability to launch all the Type-VI if they can get warp lock-on as soon as they launch. "Sniper" Megas that allow fighters with heavy weapons to fire them at longer ranges.
Joseph C.: "Build an A-10F. Speed is 15,the Ph-3 firing arcs are FH-RH, and add 2 type IVs."
I think that the phaser arcs might work better as FX/RA; the big warp engines stick up in the back, and the phaser is right between them so it can't swing very far. Adding the type-IV drones is valid, since it follows the plasma-race concept of adding Plasma-K to F-torp fighters.
In fact, I'm going to hash out some of my thoughts about variant mega-packs.
A big post. It got so big that now it's got its own webpage.
Another idea: "Close-Range Attack". An Ace pilot might be able to perform a special Close-Combat Maneuvering attack that would let them attack as though they were a Spearfish drone (representing the fact that they know where the shields' weak points are, what points on the enemy hull are vulnerable, etc.)
I'm on a roll. Mixed Fighter Squadrons (a bit gimmicky, but this is SFB and there must be a rule for everything, so saying "just drop the one fighter and take another" probably isn't detailed enough.)
Micheal,
Ok, interesting point about SFB fighters being more like PBRs. Then, what are PFs?
I would say that PFs scale pretty directly to motor torpedo boats a la PT-109; they have the same weapons as ships, and a single PT boat's attacks can seriously hurt a ship, but they have a very limited endurance compared to ships and can't operate without a base.
PS a few messages up: Actually, I assume that Joseph C. meant "add Type-VI" when talking about the A-10F. That's what I would have meant too. I keep getting my I and V backwards, sort of a drone dyslexia.
Edit: Another idea, the Fed "A-2 Starshark". (We've probably seen this before.) Built as a "counter" to the Z-1's capabilities, before the Feds realized that the Z-1 didn't really have that many capabilities. Spd 6, Phaser ph-3-FA, Drones 2xVI, Damage 9, Special Photon(*), BPV 8, Year 167, DFR 1. Photon special: Max range 8, cannot fire as proximity. This photon has a limited lifespan as the "freezer" systems hadn't been perfected; it can only last for six turns after the carrier generates it in the fighter's ready rack (it disappears after the DF weapons segment of the 32nd impulse of the sixth turn, though it does not damage the carrier or fighter if this happens.)
This is an early Fed photon-carrier, but not nearly as good as the A-10. It can't be sent on long-range strikes, and basically forces the carrier to slow to a crawl when it wants to send one out (to charge all the fighter photons.)
Oh, and another "probably already seen it" idea: Allow X-fighters with heavy weapons to carry overload charges, if the carrier generates one in the ready rack.
Actually in J3 I'd like to see Fast versions of the F-4 fighter, F-16, A-10 and G-10 assault fighter and the B-52 bomber.
A Speed 12 upgrade of both the F-4 and B-52 will keep them viable National Guard units in the middle war years up until the PFs and late war Federation bombers arrives.
The arrival of the Fast medium (FB-111, B-1) and heavy bombers (B-2) in the late General War and beyond will drive the need for improved Fed National Guard escort fighters. That would make a speed 15 "F16F" and/or F20F necessities.
This product could also use the Captain's log F-104 and A-6 material as well.
I still don't understand what the A-10 and G-10 did not get the same engine upgrade as the A-20 did in Y179 in J-2. The A-10 really ought to get an additional pair of type VI rails as its "C" refit in Y183. Adding both to the A-10 would be in line with the Captain's log published upgrades for the Klingon Z-D
Here's some ideas for J3.
DNL (SCS)-- obviously, since the DNL generally doesn't have escorts, the more it can bring along the better. Possibly largely conjectural, but during the Andro war, when the RTN network was causing problems, very fast ships like htis might have been worth giving up a DNH in the production slot.
Fast Division control ships: Again, the idea of the high speed raider, but in this case giving up all heavy weapons, and using their attrition units as a main battery.
Tanker shuttle-- a 2 space shuttle that can act as a limited re-arming point for drones and other ammunition based weapons. Perhaps make it a failed attempt to keep pace with the longer range of PF's?
No J3. Please. No more fighters. No more fighter types. No more carriers. No more carrier types.
Seriously... looks a the number of hulls which most races have available for CV duty: POV, FFV, DWV (some even have DDV), CWV (again, some with CLV), CVP, NCA-V, ACX, CV/S, CVD, BCV, CVA, BBV. Add in the "Control Ships" and you get DCS, BCS, SCS and SDS. Almost every race has each of these ships. Some have multiple examples (Feds being the worst offender).
The only Carriers I'd like to see formally added to SFB are Jessica's DV7 and my own CVG and SCG (nothing wrong with a little self-promoting J). Each of these are better suited to the Unique Ships module.
I would be open to a few X-Carriers / X-Fighters, but only on a limited basis.
If players really want to do further devlopment into attrition units, look to PFs (aka - Module K2). There are a few variants available in the PF realm (not many, but a few). There several options for addition Tender "types" - not the least of which would be the full-sized Cruiser DCSs (instead of the oh-so-cramped NCA-DCSs). Additional ships: Strike Tenders (again self-promoting); ships which carry casual flotillas; PF Supply Ships; special operation tenders used for only a few select missions. I'm sure there are more.
But please, no more carriers.42
I really hate the idea of a DNL-SCS... the DVL is bad enough. A DNL-PFT is dangerous enough without the addition of fighters. Also... remember that most races really were not impressed with DNLs. R9 goes into detail about how many of the various governments were trying to justify the existence of these ships... the thought of putting that much money into such a hull (and then sending them out un-escorted) would probably curl the admiralty's back hair.
As for Fast DCS... 
... please no...
Tanker shuttle ain't a bad idea, though.42
Well, I am a big fan of attrition units, and while I won't say no to J3, I would like to see some sort of K2 module in the near future before seeing a J3.
Strike tenders are a good idea, even without the self-promotion. ;)
Well, X1R can deal with additions like CVLX and such and perhaps introduce the Mega-X pack whci wraps up fighter use and developement up to X2.
Perhaps J3 can wait until attrition units are desparately needed again...when the Xorks come! (same with K2)
So...when will that be? When are the Xorks coming? And, I don't mean in the SFB time line...our time line!!! I know I won't get an answer...but, I can hope!
Quote:Well, X1R can deal with additions like CVLX and such and perhaps introduce the Mega-X pack whci wraps up fighter use and developement up to X2.
the biggst problem with that is that there are some players who would flat out refuse to use it-- they like X for the loss of the Attrition units.
Robert-- can we every have TOO many carriers
The more I think about it, without a really large amount of conjectural stuff, I don't see enough in either J3 or K2 to fill an entire product. Maybe it would be best to combine them.
And yes, SVC if you're listening,
WE WANT XORKS WE WANT XORKS!
Charles Gray:
there is an old saying... "Be careful in what you ask for, you just might get it."
In Reference to Xorks, I think I'd want to know a bit more before jumping "whole hog" onto THAT band wagon!
SVC has mentioned that he might publish a Xork Raider as a teaser but he'd have to design one with out the big surprises so as not to ruin the race.
I'd imagin he's a bit hesitant too in that as soon as he does us players will start designing and submitting ships (probably X2) base on them.
X2 MUST be designed on it's own merrit without considering the Xorks.
I can see full modules for the Xork period however.
MARCIN: Xorks are quite a ways off. X2 and the Trade Wars need to be hashed out first. We've still got the ISC and ANDRO conquests to tweak out (the GW is about done ship design wise would'nt you say?).
Let's not end it all too soon.