Not a chance. Each empire in FC gets one fighter. (You are approaching the Borders of Madness.)

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Thursday, April 21, 2022 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Fair enough Can't blame a three-legged methane-breather for trying.

In any case I've got an FC-ified Fighter Hellbore Table in my FC Special Projects folder already. I long ago approached the Borders of Madness, passed over said border, and now reside deep within those twisted realms, cackling madly to myself as I port over yet another esoteric SFB rule.

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Thursday, April 21, 2022 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Following the advice of Mike West, I'd like to propose that the powers that be consider adding an Andro fighter to Fighters Attack.

The main benefit of including an Andro fighter in this product would be that Andro players would get something substantive out of the Fighters Attack module. The Andro fighters also present a unique challenge to fight with and against.

The A-3 fighter could be an option, given that the speed and BPV are about in line with the other fighters. The A-3 uses only Ph-2s and TRLs, which are already in the rules, and would feel consistent with other Andro ships in FC.

As in SFB, launching an entire flight of A-3s by transporter could be done for two points of energy, or a single fighter could be launched (or recovered) for 1/2 a point. SFB allows fighter TRLs to be recharged over two turns, but that could even be discarded in FC for simplicity's sake.

The other unique capacity the Andros bring to the table is that their mastery of the transporter enables them to bring bombers into battle. So that could be another angle to take, which would even further differentiate the Andros from the other empires in the product. This would have a practical advantage in that conceptually they could function identically to other fighters, but given their size and cost there'd be less of them flitting around the board.

In either case, the Andros would use carrier pods rather than various specialised carrier ships, and they don't use escorts either. So all they would need is a fighter card and a carrier pod card.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, April 21, 2022 - 11:29 pm: Edit

For what (little) it's worth, if there was to be room in this product for any Andromedan Ship Cards, I'd rather see them get either (or both) of the anti-attrition Mothership variants from SFB Module R6: namely, the Instigator (R10.41) and/or the Ravager (R10.42).

To put it another way: I'm certainly in favour of the Adder PF being offered over in Gunboats Attack; I see them as a reasonable extrapolation from the historical Mobile Weapons Platform design. But, again for what (little) it's worth, I feel that the Andro fighters from Module C3A are a bit too far removed from the "baseline" of known Andromedan technologies to sit comfortably for me this side of the Borders of Madness.

So rather than try to give the Andros the equivalent kind of fighters as their Alpha Octant opponents, perhaps the Instigator and/or Ravager might help them respond to such unit types in their own distinct manner.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 22, 2022 - 12:05 am: Edit

Or, give the Andros their MWPs in Fighters Attack.

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Friday, April 22, 2022 - 12:32 am: Edit

Mike -- if Andro fighters are a definite no-go, then MWPs would be a reasonable alternative. But Andro fighters are really cool and unique, and bring something different to the fighter game IMO, so I'd definitely prefer those. Also fighters are simpler to handle in play than MWPs.

Gary -- The Andro fighters may be the 'same kind of unit', technically, but they play pretty differently from other fighters. They're distinctly Andro in how they're deployed and used.

Characterising them 'just another fighter' is an oversimplification, IMO. The Andros can do things with fighters/bombers that no one else can do, and they leverage Andro tech in cool and interesting ways.

As described in C3A, the Andros' gigantic hangar bays and powerful transporter tech lead pretty naturally to the idea of developing fighters and bombers that can take advantage of those characteristics. So personally I don't see it as any less reasonable an extrapolation than the Adders.

As for the Instigator and Ravager -- given they're motherships that swap TRHs out for TRLs, I can see the utility but it's not something I'd get that excited about, personally. Now if I could fill their hangars with carrier pods too, that's a different story ;)

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 08:31 pm: Edit

Cross-posting a relevant comment from another thread so Mike West will not yell at me:

"I was thinking along similar lines to you, Gary, though in my version the races using Klingon fighters adapt the Z-D disruptor-armed fighters rather than ADD-based platforms. So the LDR get their Snapper-2s (10 dmg, 1xPh-G, 4xDisr, PV=11), the Lyrans get a slightly more survivable Z-D (12 dmg, 2xPh-3, 2xDisr, PV=10), and the Selts swap the disruptor charges for PCs (Z-PC: 10 dmg, 2xPh-3, 4xPC charges, PV=10). The advantage I saw in this was that disruptors allow the fighters to adopt an assault role, and that the rules for disruptor charge usage are similar to the Hydran fusion charges.

ADD-armed fighters aren't capable of taking on an assault role, as ADDs can't be fired at ships (only drones, fighters or shuttles). Personally I find such fighters pretty one-dimensional to fly. Disruptor fighters are still worse than drone fighters, but at least they can present some kind of threat to enemy ships."

To expand on this -- something that excited me about FC is that it seemed less beholden to the restrictions imposed by SFB canon, and allowed for things like other races' BBs being real, and so forth. That being the case, at least in my view FC is the perfect place to try out some new stuff with fighters, or at least present alternative options. Having said that, my main motivation in these experiments is purely the fun-factor; IMO, ADD fighters are pretty bad and not fun to fly, whereas disruptor fighters are still kinda bad but are significantly more fun.

Mike, while I'm here may I ask you to please reply to my email from many weeks ago

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Thank you for moving the conversation. And I didn't yell; I simply pointed that we were getting way off topic.

Yes, FC has a "looser" version version of the SFU, but it is still a version of the SFU. So, you can't just add things whole cloth into FC, and for things that do exist, they need to be as they exist.

So, the base problem with adding ADD fighters in FC is that they don't exist in the SFU. At least for the empires in question. So, unless they are added into the SFU, they aren't available for FC. (Not that something new can't appear in FC first. But adding something new into FC means it will be shortly added to SFB, too.)

The issue with the Z-D is a little more nuanced. Yes, the Z-Y in FC is faster than in SFB. But that's because its speed 15 is being forced into a speed 8/16/24 paradigm. The difference between speed 15 and speed 16 isn't a big deal. But the Z-D would be going from speed 10 in SFB to speed 16 in FC and that is a big deal. And arbitrarily changing the damage points is problematic, too. Because if Steve lets a speed 16, damage 12 Z-D fly in FC, there will be lots of people asking for their speed 15, damage 12 Z-D in SFB. Adding in the extra phaser just makes it worse.

Now, if you can convince the Steves that a speed 15 Z-DF is worth making and should exist in SFB, then you can get a speed 16, damage 10 Z-D in FC. But you'll need to do it in that order. And adding in the extra phaser and damage points just makes it that much harder of a request.

I'll check my email. I thought I had replied, but obviously not.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 11:06 pm: Edit

I was typing this before Mike West's reply, but anyway:

-----

To this point, it appears that the choice of fighter for use by a given empire in FC is based on whichever size-1 fighter is considered to be their "primary" naval superiority type over in SFB.

So, if an empire (such as the Hydrans) has heavy weapons on their primary fighter, they get to have those here also. Although one might argue that a Stinger-2's most powerful weapon is its Gatling phaser.

But on the other hand, if a different empire (such as the "lost empire" Carnivons) do not have heavy weapons on their primary fighter... then they would have to do without those over here.

Now, while the "lost empire" Carnivons would have to make do with an ADD fighter, as and when they ever get a sample carrier in Ship Card form (perhaps as a future Hailing Frequencies Extra?), the reason why I was advocating such a fighter as a "droneless" alternative for the Lyrans, LDR, and Seltorians was due to the ability to historically swap out their Klingon-type fighters' drones for RALADs over in SFB under (J12.11).

To re-iterate, there is nothing to stop any drone-armed empire in SFB from using RALADs in place of drones on their fighters in historical scenarios. Whether any of them would bother to do so is another matter - but the option already exists for this to be done, should they so wish.

Yes, there are more limitations when using ADDs in place of drones. But if the Klingons themselves are not to be given Z-Ds (and nor, in my view, should they), it would be inconsistent to let those empires which import Klingon fighter designs to get them.

As noted in the other thread, if Lyran, LDR, and/or Seltorian players don't care for a "drone-less" fighter option here, well and good. But even so, or those empires which (in my view, at least) should perhaps have not been given drone-armed fighters in SFB in the first instance, I wondered if the "RALAD" option would at least be the most historically valid means - albeit one with its own tactical limitations - of allowing for said empires to have a "droneless" alternative option here.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 11:11 pm: Edit

One point I want to make that is separate enough that I think it warrants a different post.

When I point these things out, it is not to say no. I don't get to say no; I don't get to say yes. SVC is the only one who can say yes or no. So, my intention is not to stop the suggestion or turn anyone away. I certainly don't want to be a gate. My intention is to point out problems that I see with your idea or proposal, so that you will know about them and can address them. If you can overcome them and convince Steve to implement your idea, great. If not, at least you knew what you needed to overcome to give you a better chance.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Gary, if you convince Steve that an RALAD rule is worth the effort for FC, I will write it so it can be added to the Fighter rules. (Of course, Steve would then have to review and approve that.) But I have no problem with an extra rule that lets a drone fighter replace their drones with RALADs.

Off the top of my head, I'd say that a drone fighter with two drones can have four RALAD shots (representing the two additional dogfight rails that are abstracted out of FC). They use the normal ADD to-hit and damage rules, including the max two hex range in "offensive" mode. They'd still be restricted to FA, but they'd effectively be 360 for defensive fire.

The real question is if Steve will think they are worth the bother.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, July 10, 2022 - 11:41 pm: Edit

Actually, the way I was thinking it, one could perhaps write an "anti-drone fighter" rule which was flexible enough to cover both a "lost empire" Carnivon fighter and a "RALAD" drone-alternative fighter.

As a basis of comparison, the Carnivon Jackal-4 in SFB Module C6 has 2 FA phaser-3s, a six-shot ADD, and 14 damage points. If one were to convert this over to FC, I'd see no problem with giving it the same FA arc for "offensive" fire as you propose for the RALAD fighter option - which means they would use the same rule.

From there, the only difference would be the number of damage boxes (14 for the Carnivon fighter, or 12 or 10 for the drone-armed fighter being replaced). And possibly the number of ADD shots the Carnivon gets compared to the others - although there is an earlier version of the Jackal that has only 4 ADD shots.

-----

Speaking of "lost empire" fighters, presumably a Paravian carrier would get a fighter based on the Thundercrane superiority fighter - in which case it would be relatively trivial to adapt the plasma fighter rules in order to account for the pair of quantum wave torpedoes.

-----

One other thought (for now): in scenarios where one or both of the "lost empires" are in play, would an Orion carrier be permitted to use ADD- and/or QWT-armed fighters, in the same manner as the other fighter types they are able to steal in the "standard" timeline?

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 12:15 am: Edit

Well, my main argument for Z-Ds in FC would be that they were already published in Captain's Log 37 in the Klingon D7V ship card. That same issue also contained a Fed CVS featuring F-15s (4 drones, Ph-G, PV 16), F18s, and A10s (which were 12 points instead of 10, presumably for the extra speed). The fighter rules in CL37 say they all move at speed 16.

I've used those ships in multiple games, and recreated those fighters in my own FC carrier ship cards, and the games went fine and the SFU did not collapse

Fundamentally the extra damage points don't matter much to me, and the extra phaser was a typo. But if we were to offer a droneless option for the other empires using Klingon fighters, I'd *much* rather fly Z-Ds than ADDs that can't do anything to ships at all. They're just straight boring (sorry Carnivons, I still love you guys).

Plus there's very plausible arguments, IMO at least, for these other empires going with the Z-D over the Z-Y. I've never really understood why empires that use disruptors (or PCs, as the case may be) would adopt drone fighters, which would require buying lots of drones to support them, training deck crews to load them, finding places to put them, etc., when they're already very comfortable with disruptor tech.

For that reason I think there's a justification for these to exist. If I were the Lyran fleet looking for fighters with a minimum of fuss, I'd certainly look seriously at asking for a faster Z-D that doesn't require all that drone nonsense, and has weaponry my pilots are already familiar with.

As for Z-PCs for the Selts -- the rules for PC charges would be very close to those for disruptors, and again it'd add a little Selt flavour to the fighters. My justification would simply be that A) the Selts don't get a lot of love in general, so why not give them something; and B) if the Vudar of all people get specialist Ion Cannon rules, surely the heroic Selts who took down a galactic empire deserve a little flavour?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 08:17 am: Edit

Gary,

I'm on board with an RALAD fighter if Steve is willing. I'm not on board with a full on Jackal-style ADD fighter unless it is otherwise added to the game for the empires in question. Again, convince Steve and it can get done. The ADD fighter is a whole new creation and must be treated as such.

Eric,

I'm on board with a PC based fighter for the Seltorians. However, it has to be added to the game first. Get it added to the game, and it can then be added to FC. I agree the rules are not complicated. That's not the issue. The issue is that the fighter flat out doesn't exist and we can't just make it from nothing without having it added to the overall SFU first.

For the Z-D (and A-10), yes, they were published as play test material. However, they haven't been pursued thus far as drone fighters meet the needs and fit in the game. With the squadron and swarm rules, they don't add much to the counter clutter. Since the drone fighters work and don't require massive changes like the disruptor fighters, that appears to be the direction things are headed.

For the Lyrans using disruptor fighters in general, you need to work with the Steves to get them to make that change. But, until then, I am pretty much compelled to "stay within the lines". Again, both of you are fundamentally asking for real changes within the SFU, not just a small change in FC. Get those changes made in the SFU, and FC is fair game. Without that, I don't think they should be added to FC.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 01:50 pm: Edit

In terms of actual game mechanics, there isn't much of a difference in SFB between a size-1 fighter with a built-in ADD, such as the Carnivon Jackal-4 or Hyena-3, and a size-1 fighter with its drones swapped out for RALADs. In both cases, the ADDs/RALADs have the same firing rate, to-hit roll, and amount of damage scored under (J12.2). Even the procedure for reloading them is the same under (J4.87).

The main difference is that, while RALADs are always fired in the FA arc, the arc of the hull-mounted ADD depends on the operating Carnivon fighter: 360* on the Jackal-4, or FA on the Hyena-3.

So, in FC terms, it wouldn't really matter much exactly where on the fighter the ADD rounds are being held, since for the most part they'll fire (and be reloaded) the same way in either case. Especially so, if one were to restrict the Carnivon fighter's ADD to an FA arc for "offensive" fire, so as to keep it in line with other fighter-based weapons currently in the playest Fighters Attack ruleset.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Convince Steve, and the rules will get written. Whether they get published or not would then be a separate decision be Steve.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 11:26 pm: Edit

You need to convince at least two guys named "Steve". And I think you know which two.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Sunday, August 14, 2022 - 02:14 am: Edit

Bit of a change of an opinion on this for me. Originally I really liked the flights and swarms concept, that was based on reading the Federation Commander rules and "playing" out the game by myself.

Now that I have actually played the game vs others I feel like the CL37 rules are actually better. Nice easy one page of rules that gives fighters flexibility while still reducing map clutter. I also really like the diversity of units in CL37 vs. the one type of fighter for all mentality.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, August 14, 2022 - 11:22 am: Edit

Do note that the CL37 preview rules were the very first pass of putting some ideas out there. This means that several thoughts were put out there, and the rules where very sketched out. The newer rules were intended to fill in more details and meet the stated overall goals (I.e. reduce counter clutter). Also remember that the CL37 rules only covered the Feds and Klingons. The rest of the empires would cause the rules to expand well past one page. (Which is what happened.)

And it isn't "one fighter for all". It is "one fighter for each empire". If some empires' fighters are functionally identical, that's just what happened. They are still different fighters underneath. There isn't just "one plasma fighter", for example. The Gorns use the G-12 and the Romulans use the FSF. If they have the same statistics, that's just how it is. They aren't the same fighter.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 14, 2022 - 07:31 pm: Edit

The "new" rules replaced the CL37 rules because the vast overwhelming majority of players didn't like the CL37 rules. There has always been a tiny minority of FC players who wanted to bring every SFB rule that I left out of FC back into FC, and I have resisted the urge to do so.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Sunday, August 14, 2022 - 07:59 pm: Edit

SVC

To be clear I don’t want every rule! If anything some things like movement could have probably been even simpler if you really wanted.

However, I don’t think unit diversity and a new rule are the same thing. Lack of unit diversity = cookie cutter which is also a big complaint.

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Sunday, August 14, 2022 - 08:43 pm: Edit

I agree with Mr Pepper on this one. I don't vibe with the swarm/flight rules, and the single-fighter-per-empire thing removes any strategic choice when incorporating fighters into a fleet, and reduces tactical complexity and variety during battle. As a regular player of wargames, counter clutter really is not something that concerns me; even a large fleet battle in FC is positively sparse compared to the counter stacks on the board in any one of my GMT or MMP wargames.

For my home FC games I've developed a set of Advanced Fighter Rules that give each race 3 or so fighter types (generally assault, superiority, and heavy) and the rules to run them. I've made special squadron ship cards that incorporate trackers for rearming costs and such, too. Fighters are easy to fly and track using these cards.

By Eric Silverman (Ericsilverman) on Sunday, August 14, 2022 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Apologies for the double post; I wanted also to follow up on the discussion of variant fighter options from a couple weeks ago. Recently I dug out my Master Starship Books and the Master Fighter Chart and noticed several relevant things:

1) Relevant to my proposal — the Z-De fighter exists and is a speed-14 Z-D. Upping the speed from 14 to 16, and dropping the drones (and BPV) for FC seems like workable idea to me.

2) The Lyran MSB states that the Lyrans did acquire some Z-Ds, but decided not to pursue assault fighters and relegated them to training or special missions. So in a sense, I guess my proposal would be to allow players to declare their game a ‘special mission’ with access to Z-De fighters, and replace their Z-Ys with them.

3) Relevant to Gary’s proposal — the Z-Ee also exists (speed-14, PV 13, 4xADD, 1xPh-3-FA, Dmg 10, 2xDrones). This seems a possible route to get a Klingon ADD fighter over in FC. However the Klingon MSB has this to say about the Z-E line: “C8Vs (R3.28) switched to carrying a single Z-Y (R3.F4) squadron and a mixed Z-D (R3.F5) and Z-E squadron. This freed up the Z-Y (R3.F4) superiority fighters to do what they did best and provided the attacking Z-Ds with cover (from the Z-Es) during their assault.” Later on it states about the Z-EC “This fighter met with resounding success as an escort, keeping other fighters away from the assault formations. Some pure Z-E squadrons served on the Hydran border, and some such units were used defensively on the Federation border due to the hordes of drones launched by Federation carrier groups.” Given the specialised escort role of these fighters, my feeling is that Z-Ee fighters are a bit of an awkward fit in an FC context.

Gary, you also posed several thoughts related to the FC versions of the Carnivon and Paravian fighters. For what it's worth, the Carnivon Mobile Carrier was published in C130, and it has Jackal fighters with 2xPh-3-FA, 6xADD-360, and 10 damage (crippled at 7). The Paravian Mobile Carrier was published in Communique 129, and uses Thundercrane fighters with 2xPh-3-FA, 2xQWT-FA, and 10 damage (crippled at 7). The Jackal fighter lost 4 damage compared to SFB, so in my experience they tend to get shredded very quickly. For this reason I’ve made ship cards for Carnivon carriers that use the Jackal-4 instead (2xPh-3-FA, 6xADD-360, 14 damage, crippled at 10, speed 16, 11 points). I also made Borders of Madness carriers that include Hyena-3s, which add some much-needed spice to Carnivon fighter operations.

In the discussion above about my fighter proposals there were suggestions that I ‘get it added to the game’ first, but I’m unsure what that means. My guess is that means to get the fighters added to SFB, but as noted above, the disruptor-armed fighters already exist at Speed 14 and the idea of replacing Lyran Z-Ys with fighters using single-shot direct-fire weapons more generally has already been proposed in several threads on this forum. The LDR Snapper-2s are already published in CL and the LDR MSB. So, while I can make a proposal for the Seltorian fighter, I'm unsure what I need to propose for the Snapper-2 and Z-De, since they already exist in SFB and the question is just whether they can be offered as direct-fire alternatives in FC.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Sunday, August 14, 2022 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Another way to look at it. Fighters aren’t drones each operates differently like a FF vs CA, they are specific to specific ships that have published SSD, they don’t need different rules for a F20 vs F14 vs F18, and they already have models in shapeways

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, August 14, 2022 - 11:42 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

In the discussion above about my fighter proposals there were suggestions that I ‘get it added to the game’ first, but I’m unsure what that means. My guess is that means to get the fighters added to SFB, but as noted above, the disruptor-armed fighters already exist at Speed 14 and the idea of replacing Lyran Z-Ys with fighters using single-shot direct-fire weapons more generally has already been proposed in several threads on this forum.

---