Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 31, 2005	25		04/01 01:06am
	Archive through April 01, 2005	25		04/01 03:01pm
	Archive through April 05, 2005	25		04/05 03:20pm

Wait, are we now proposing a .05EP surcharge to replace fighters?

If so there is no way that I find that feasible. First of all, who wants to add up all the fighters lost on a turn by turn basis? I certainly do not.

Second of all, hasn't this been proposed many times only to be shot down many times already?

Third... why? They are already prohibitively expensive to purchase.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 01:25 pm: Edit

and at 2 EP per fighter factor how much did you pay for those "free" replacement fighters so far in the game?

if the handwaved 0.05 EP/fighter were true then you have to replace that fighter 40 times before you are ahead. given that the game only lasts about 30 turns and you don't have your fighters for that long (you build carriers during the game) replacing a fighter on a single carrier more then 40 times is quite a trick.

even if fighters were 0.1 EP you would have to replace the fighter 20 times before the 2EP initial cost would be exceeded.

now you do get 12 EP/turn in fighter production for 'free', but that's just part of your income

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Another point though is this, I wouldn't want to count which fighters were lost on a turn by turn basis. I'm probably not the only one.

You would also have to count which carriers lost which fighters in which hexes.

And hasn't SVC already killed suggestions like this every other time it's come up?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Just say No.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Concur.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 03:40 pm: Edit

first off please go back a bit and read the thread

nobody is suggesting that the rules be changed to charge for fighter replacements (in this thread)

what's being discussed is a person's rant about how incompatable SFB and F&E results are and he used fighters as an example becouse they cost to replace in SFB and they get free replacements in F&E. the discussion above was to show that the current cost of fighters is such that paying a reasonable amount for replacements would actually be cheaper then the current system.

F&E had pay-for-replacement fighters at one time, and they were changed to the current system for simplicity. I don't see them changeing back (at least not without computer support to do the recordkeepign for you). what is still an option for some time in the future is eliminating the free fighters that races get. and while the initial reacton is that this will kill the alliance, there has been one playtest game that seemed to indicate other factors comeing into play so it's still out there as 'possibly someday'

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 03:49 pm: Edit

I don't think that game went anywhere though did it? like to turn 4 or 5 then they stopped playing if I remember right.. which I probably do not.

In my eyes there needs to be differences between the two games. They are, in fact, two entirely different games based on the same 'history'.

If you look at other games you will find that though they may have the same game name (Axis and Allies and its companion modules) they all have different strategic methods of play to succeed. Axis and Allies normal is different then Axis and Allies Europe, Axis and Allies Pacific etc. They are all similar, but there are differences that require slight differences in strategy to succeed.

Now SFB and F&E are different also in that SFB is a tactical level game. There are no repercussions in how you played in yesterdays SFB scenario, or last weeks, or last months, or even the scenario you just finished 2 minutes ago. It doesn't matter if you were thoroughly squished by your opponent and did 0 damage to him in return. It doesn't matter if you totally thoroughly squeezed a victory from the jaws of defeat with some miraculous unplotted mid-term speed change etc. In F&E though, each move, each days, each turns, each phases actions have repercussions in next weeks game, in next months meeting etc.

The two games are similar, yet different,and they require that difference to be played properly. There will always be differences between the two games, and we should not be trying to break that barrier down between the two.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 03:49 pm: Edit

I find no problem myself with counting fighter losses. I keep track of it all on paper. I'm like a CPA specializing in blowing things up and counting the pieces of debris. I can pull out records of per turn ship losses, sometimes listed on a round by round basis, going back to 1986. I'm a freak that way.

I could keep track of all fighter losses each turn, noting which fighters don't need to be replaced (you don't have to replace fighters on a carrier that also died). I could calculate the costs in my head even if we used advanced calculus with a sliding scale of fighter losses to economic might ratio.

But the one thing I can't do is find other players. I want to be able to play this game with other, non-freakish, normal people.

So I also say "Just Say No".

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 03:59 pm: Edit

On the other topic, which (if I remember correctly) is the actual topic...

If you want a way to force carriers to have escorts, even if crappy ones, is to artificially rule that carriers can't transfer fighters to each other. To use the fighters of a carrier, the carrier has to go into battle, or at least send the fighters in as independent squadrons. Either way, the every carrier will need escorts.

*~*~*

I think there was a third topic being discussed, but I got lost. Something about Axis and Allies being different than Axis and Allies? I'll catch up on that later.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 04:17 pm: Edit

you are saying no to something that wasn't suggested.

Jimi, there are differences that are there becouse of the lack of concequences in SFB and there are differences that are due to scale and then there are differences that can't be explained in any way and the causes range from "it's just too complicated to figure that out" to "I never thought of that" to "oops, I wish I hadn't ever let that happen, it was definantly a mistake"

the "oops" and the "I never thought of that" catagories may be fixed at some point (as they have been in the past) and so shutting down discussion with the with the argument that "they are different, don't try to make them the same" misses the point

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 05:11 pm: Edit

I'm saying no to this thread, and most of the posts in it. And I have read it.

By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 06:19 pm: Edit

I have been reading this thread and I have to agree with Chris. This is a big no. F&E is a strategic level game. It should stay that way. Personally, any rule proposal that starts off with "to bring F&E more in line with SFB", or any variation of that thought, are immediately rejected.

If the purpose of this discussion is to find a way force carriers to have an escort, the easiest thing to do is go back to unbreakable carrier groups of original F&E. It has the benefit of being simple, direct and maintains the strategic nature of the game.

I love F&E. It is one of my top two games (honestly can't decide between F&E or Empires in Arms) However, I think it is quickly becoming unplayable due to all the new rules additions. I am in a game that is into turn 18C. (I think, might be 16C). We meet on Sundays at 10am and play until 5 or 6pm. That is 5 - 6 hours of playing time with the lunch break thrown in. If we start a turn when we get there, I consider us extremely lucky that if we get through all movement. One turn from EP collection of the Coalition to the Alliance establishing their reserves can take us up to 4 sessions of 5 - 6 hours. We are talking 20 - 24 hours to play one turn. This just seems a little excessive.

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Russell, what recent rules addition is making your movement take so long?

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 08:25 pm: Edit

I have had a day or two for turns in the middle teens, but never anywhere near 30 hours.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 09:18 pm: Edit

I have to second Russell, here. My group averages 1.5 - 2 turns per 12-hr session in the early game, then we drop to 1 - 1.5 in the mid game, and that's only playing with AO, CO, and CVW.

Honestly folks, we've already crossed the threshold of too many rules. It's time to go back and read the designer's notes from the core rule book and very carefully reconsider adding any more rules. Fixing broken ones, that's fine, but, please, let's not add any more.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 12:18 am: Edit

Doomsday II, sort of thing.

By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 04:54 am: Edit

Why are there differences between the tactical use of carriers in SFB and F&E? The answer of course stems from the fact that F&E uses free fighters and escorts which can protect a carrier with their very lives. SFB uses neither of these.

Since F&E is a game of economics, in an F&E battle, people want to maximize their EP damage per turn to the enemy. Thus carriers are a thorn in the side, as fighters absorb damage, and are then replaced for free.

Since SFB is a game of victory points, in an SFB battle, people want to get ahead of their enemy in victory points and then get out while the getting’s good. (Assuming people are playing “to win”, and not just “for fun”, i.e.: “To heck with the victory conditions, last entity standing wins”. It is, of course, telling that F&E battles are not generally played “for fun”.) Since fighters are units worth victory points, and are very vulnerable, they are a logical target.

Hence, it is the difference in the value of the fighter that determines the difference between the carrier in SFB and F&E.

This difference is the essential root of the issue.

I leave it to others to debate if this is a good difference or a bad difference, but it is a difference.

Now, the other issue here is whether or not it is a reasonable difference. There has been some discussion here about whether or not the “cost” of a free fighter factor is a reasonable price for an infinite supply train of fighters.

Apparently, people refuse to believe me when I say that comparing the economics of SFB and F&E is an apples and oranges comparison. Hence, I assume that people believe that the economies of SFB and F&E are related enough to draw correlations.

Well, let’s see about that.

First, let’s establish a more concrete number for the cost of a fighter.

To do that, we’ll need a currency exchange rate between an F&E EP and an SFB EBPV.

Very well, let’s take a look at the Kzinti, then, shall we?

(In SFB, BPV=EBPV unless otherwise stated, I’ll be thus listing EBPV whenever it’s listed, BPV when it’s not)

Let’s look at the hulls in service at the opening game, before any ship in the fleet gets refits. That’s not entirely realistic, since at least some of the ships would have been refit, as the Kzinti have a history of conflict with their neighbours, but we’ll start with that assumption.

Hull……EBPV……..EP…………….EBPV/EP
DN…….225………16…………….14.0625
CV…….147+F……12+F………….12.25 (+F)
BC……..128………8………………16
CC……..135………9………………15
CD……..113………11……………..10.2727
CVL……117+F…...10+F…………..11.7 (+F)
BF……...142………10……………..14.2
CL………84……….6………………14
CLD…….81……….9……………….9
CLE……..84……….7………………12
CLG…….84……….6……………….14
CVE…….89+F…….8+F……………11.125 (+F)
DD……...90……….6……………….15
FF………62……….2.5……………..24.8
EFF……..65……….3.5…………….18.5714
FFG…….81………..2.5…………….32.4
FFK…….80………..3………………26.6667
DF………74……….4.5…………….16.4444
SF………90………..3.5…………….25.7143
SDF…….90………..5.5…………….16.3636
TGC……120……….8………………15
TGT……114……….6………………19
FRD……200……….10……………...20
MB……..80………...10……………..8
BS……...120+F…….5+MB+F………8 (+F)
BATS…..200+F…….9+MB+F………10.5263 (+F)
SB………600+F……30+BATS+F…..12.2449 (+F)

And I’m not going to discuss the FCR or POL for many reasons. Let us all agree they wouldn’t fit on the curve. Furthermore, I don’t have the SFB numbers for an FKE, so we’ll neglect that one.

Now, the fighters are not included yet, (Fighters having such variable cost in both systems … which fighters, how are they armed, chaff packs, etc in SFB ... ship rate, base rate or planetary rate in F&E, and the entire free fighters issue as well), but we can see that we’re looking at a wildly variable exchange rate, even just looking at base hulls.

Now, we know that F&E has “discounted” hulls. Look at the FFG, its 51BPV, (20.4BPV/EP) but apparently 81EBPV to make. Perhaps the assumption is that the hull is made by conversion, thus costing 4.5EP (18EBPV/EP). In either case, SFB thinks it costs just as much to make as a CLD, and in F&E, the FFG costs half of what the CLD does, even if you make it by substitution.

But let’s take a closer look at the CLD. In F&E, it’s a 6/3 2EW BG-able unit capable of doing drone bombardment. Very, very nice, but it’s 3 EP more than a base CL hull … that’s enough to buy an FFK. Still, when you need that EW, you need that EW, so you’ll probably build it anyway. In SFB, it’s 81 compot. Oh, it’s a good hull, but it’s actually 3 BPV/EBPV cheaper than a CL. Granted, it’s liable to raise its BPV by more than the CL because of it’s drones, but certainly not by the 80BPV that the FFK is worth.

So the bottom line is that there are huge variations in the data here, and it’s really … REALLY rough to try and speculate how many EBPV an EP buys you. Of course, this is because the pricing schemes are way different in the two games. Scout channels cost a whole lot more in F&E, for instance. Later on in the war, we see the CM, and DW show up, which are discounted hulls, and the focus of a lot of production. These good deals raise the average to higher values than the 14-16 of the older cruiser hulls.

For instance:
CM: 110 EBPV for 5 EP … that’s 22 EBPV/EP. Yes, that’s Base hull, and I know the Kzinti would never build a base hull CM, but the MEC is 101 for 6 EP, which gives 16.83 EBPV/EP. Still a decent deal.
DW: 84 EBPV for 4 EP … 21 EBPV/EP, and once these show up, you’re making these or FFKs at 26.67:1, so you’re getting a good deals on your line ships.

Still, despite the wide range in the data, if we have to draw a line somewhere, we can say the exchange rate is probably in the 15-20 range. This is a bit high for many of the items on the list, but remember that SFB refits are free in F&E, which will drive up the conversion. Also “included” in the F&E price are a lifetime’s supply of replacement shuttles, replacement crew units and repairs to hulls which weren’t quite crippled, drone upgrades, commander’s options such as boarding parties and t-bombs, etc., so there’s a fair amount of overhead to subsume. (Up to 20%, in the case of commander’s options, for instance). This drives up the price, and I would put the line at 20 EBPV per EP, but let’s leave that range open to interpretation, and say 15-20.

I leave the calculations of other races as an exercise for the reader, but since most classes of ships are of comparable BPV, and generally identical F&E prices, they should generate similar values. Of course, the Hydrans may provide slightly skewed results, due to their hybrid fighter program.


So, now that we’ve got a rough baseline (15-20EBPV/EP), let’s get to the fighters:

Y169 fighters:
AS: 3/5
AAS: 3/6
SAS: 3/5

Later in the war, the fighters get more expensive:

Y175 fighters:
DAS: 5/10
HAAS: 4/8
LAS: 9/17 (Heavy)

And in the late war, it continues on …

Y183 fighters:
TAAS: 5/9
TADS: 6/11
TADSC: 6/12
DASC: 6/11

So, given:
A fighter factor is supposed to be 2 fighters.
A free fighter factor is 2EP is a fighter factor for a carrier for “Life”.
An EP is worth about 15-20 EBPV.

If we assume “Life” is evaluated the way an insurance company would, i.e.: a likely number of replacements, what is that number of replacements?

So we’re looking at about 5 to 6.67 replacements. Midwar, as fighter costs climb, we’re looking at about 3 to 4 DAS replacements or 3.75 to 5 HAAS replacements.

But, this assumes the fighters are armed with no specialty drones. This is, of course laughable. Even in Y169, medium speed drones are “Standard Issue” but still cost commander’s options points to equip, so a “standard issue” fighter will be even more expensive still.

The AS and AAS cost 1 more point, the SAS 0.5, so we’re now down to 3.75 to 5 replacements, 4.28 to 5.71 for the SAS, if you want superiority shuttles.

By the midwar, the HAAS, DAS and LAS are starting to mix it up, bringing the cost up to 4+1.5, 5+0.5 or 9+2+rails for the heavy fighter. Of course, the question with the LAS is how many heavy fighters to a heavy fighter factor. If we assume one, then we have a replacement rate of 2.72 to 3.64 for the fighters, and somewhere between 1 and 2 replacements for the heavy fighters, depending on the rail loadout.

By the late war, fast drones are standard issue, so the prices climbed again, and we’re looking at 5+3 for a TAAS, 6+3+rails for a TADS, 6+4+rails for a TADSC and 6+2 for a DASC. That gives us a best-deal of 1.88 to 2.5 replacement TAASs or DASCs, and somewhere between 1 and 2 replacements for the TADS/TADSC, depending on the rail loadouts.


So, the insurance company that sold you the fighter annuity starts loosing money after maybe five squadrons in the opening game, about three squadrons in the middle game and about two squadrons in the end game. Of course, they can have that money invested and working for them, some fighters are bound to either survive engagements or be salvageable after combat. Still, you’ve got to admit that we’re really shafting it to them with the carriers.

How could that be? Well, if you invert the number of replacements, you conveniently get the F&E cost of a fighter. (Remember, the number of replacements is 2EP divided by the cost of 2 fighters)

That’s right, we’re looking at around 0.2 EP per fighter in the opening game, through 0.3 in the midgame and into 0.4, 0.5 or more in the endgame. Now, just let me remind you that that is the price of a fighter. F&E uses fighter factors, which are pairs of fighters. Don’t forget to pay for his wingman. (0.4EP/0.6/0.8-1+ish per factor). Have a nice day.


So, the F&E cost of a fighter factor (2EP aught to buy you enough for the war) is a bit off, isn’t it? Near the end of the war, the “PDU rate” of 0.5EP for two fighters doesn’t even let that insurance company buy you the fighters, much less a replacement.


Now, are these results reasonable? The only comparisons we have to something in current F&E are the Federation F-111, and the Hydran Supply Tug.

The F-111 costs 0.25 per factor, and they’re 1 F-111 per 1.5 factors, so we’re looking at F&E paying something between 5.63 and 7.5 EBPV per F-111. For a fighter that’s worth 10 EBPV, plus something between 3.5 and 7 for drone speed upgrades plus whatever it has in the 3-space bay, that’s a darn, darn good deal. Of course, you can pay eight times that get the annuity plan, but who in their right mind expects to replace more than 400 F-111 factors? (The annuity plan is 50 EP to start, remember)

The Hydrans pay 0.2 per fighter factor. That’s 3-4 EBPV per factor, or 1.5-2 EBPV per fighter, which is a darn, darn good deal, because a Stinger will run you anywhere from 4 to 8 EBPV, unless you’ve still using Stinger-0s left over from the 4 powers war.


So, the bottom line is that the economies of F&E and SFB don’t really jive all that well, and the extreme case is the fighter.


That is why there is such a vast difference between the way SFB is fought, and the way F&E is fought … in SFB, it’s worth it to kill the fighters, they’re expensive. In F&E, they’re free.

When a Kzinti CV hits the SFB board in 179 and unleashes a dozen fighters, it’s putting around 48 or so EBPV (Victory Points) at risk. Now, that’s not bad, since it spent 84 or so BPV on them, and so they make a “cheap” screen, but if all they do is cripple a Lyran CL and kill a few shuttles before they die to the Lyran CA/CL (or whatever the Lyrans want their 231+ BPV to buy), the battle is going to go to whoever spent the least on commander’s options. Hence, sweeping the fighters and leaving is a valid tactic in SFB. If you can keep the range open (and you can keep the range to a speed-8 fighter open, trust me), you can keep the pace of the battle controlled enough to be able to swing around for disruptor shots when you please, leaving you to manage the drone waves with phasers, ESGs, T-bombs, tractors and their inherent fuel restrictions. You dance a game of “keep-away” at speed-21 and erode the fighters, since you’ve got all day, and they’ve got ammunition restrictions. Now, once we add more ships to both sides (escorts), the rules stay the same, but the long-range firepower and drone-eating ability of the Lyrans goes up. The long-range response firepower and drone-launching ability of the Kzinti do go up as well, but not by nearly the same amount. A CLE/EFF for the Kzinti are another CA (and 16 victory points on turn 2) for the Lyrans, and after buying drone upgrades for the ships are probably more like a BC, or DW+FF, if the Lyrans prefer. Keep adding ships, and you run the risk of giving the Lyrans so many disruptors that they open fire from range-30, score an internal and then swing around, disengaging at the end of the round and winning the scenario.

When a Kzitni CV hits the F&E board in 179 and unleashes 6 fighter factors, it’s putting nothing at all at risk. The fighters are there to die, and if the enemy won’t sweep them, you will, since there are CVLs, SAVs and FCRs to hand out more. In an F&E game turn, your objective is to get all your fighters killed, as that implies that you have absorbed your maximum allotment of “free” damage, and have (all things equal) returned the favor onto fleets unable to take as much (or any, in this case) “free” damage.


That’s why you see F&E ships trying to take out the carrier despite the protection of the escorts, and why you see SFB ships not bothering with the carrier despite the fact that there is NOTHING the escorts can do to protect them in a fleet on fleet engagement.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 06:23 am: Edit

Mark

A very good analysis. But it misses out the fact that F&E costs are not supposed to jive with SFB.

BPV reflects the combat power of the ship, and is probably related to the F&E strength factors.

F&E EP reflects the cost of the ship.

Two totally different things. SFB has nothing to say about economics.

One other thing you did not touch is that refits, which increase BPV, are not reflected in F&E. So, over time, you need more BPV to get the same F&E compot - i.e. XEP in F&E buys you more BPV.

Perhaps the best comparison is look at the cost (and build time) of a modern aircraft carrier compared with the cost of its fighter wing, and then note that SFB carrier by comparison carry a lot less fighters.

Now, fighters are very expensive, but I imagine 12 fighters look cheap compared to your spiffy nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (equivalent to a DN in SFB?).

Mark

In an SFB fleet battle, if you are looking at your ships being valued as they are in F&E economics, there is *no way* you will risk your Kzinti CV. A typical CV group will probably have its CLE and EFF 15 hexes from the enemy while the CV is ~24 hexes away. The fighters will ideally be about 10 hexes away from the enemy with EW support from the carrier. Sure, the carrier's firepower is compromised, but that will not matter if you are assaulting a base (the fighters do the job very nicely thankyou). In open space, you simply run unless you have surprised the enemy (I went through this earlier in the thread).

So, at best, your enemy Klingon/Lyran Fleet will get a pop on the carrier at ranges 16-22 with no shift. Say, it is Klingon, and...

C8(adm) D7C D7C D7C D7 D7 D7 [D5 D5 D5 F5 F5 F5]

So... we have 9*4=36 DSR at range 16-22. The C8 is probably hanging back a little (form bonus) to plug in at range 23-30. F5s are out of range.

DSR damage expected (UIM assumed) = 54
P-1/2 damage expected = ?30 or so?

There is no way 84 damage is going to pop a CV. It might not even be crippled. And that's a DSR-heavy fleet.

Of course, the escorts can be smoked. And we certainly wonder why the EFF can get done but not the CLE. But the carrier can be protected easily.

But - just suppose now that your scout was lending 6ECM to the carrier. It can now be right up there next to the escorts and be just as difficult to kill as it was at range 16-22 with no EW support. The enemy will only be able to counter the ECM with 2-3 ships at best (assuming one scout per side).

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 09:37 am: Edit

Mark, very good analysis.

I think you proved the reason why everyone suffers from economic exhaustion as the war drags on.

"So, the insurance company that sold you the fighter annuity starts loosing money after maybe five squadrons."

With all the insurance companies back home going bankrupt, the economic chaos, runs on the banks, and federally sponsored bailouts drags down the whole economy.

By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 11:53 am: Edit

DS,

Thank you.

SFB claims to have taken economics into account, since ships are given an economic and combat BPV. It just so happens that they tend to be the same in SFB, whereas F&E puts a higher price tag on ships that are more useful there, regardless of whether they're more useful in SFB. That's where it doesn't jive. If someone went through and readjusted all the EBPV costs of all the ships, they'd mesh perfectly. Of course, I'd pity that someone, but that's just me.

As for the refits, most of the ships that get refits are the old cruiser hulls, not the war hulls. Since most of the old cruiser hulls are something like 14-16 EBPV per EP, and the war hulls more like 20:1, I suggested that the line should be drawn closer to the 20:1 mark.

If you look at the cost of the refits compared to the cost of the hulls, there are few cases where it makes a noticeable difference anyway.


In your example, the fleet COULD cripple the CV with decent dice. It may even be able to finish it off with a second or third salvo later, maybe not, but that's based on the command decisions of the players. The bottom line is that in F&E, there is absolutely no way the attacker can cause this result. The carrier is untouchable until the escorts go down.

In SFB, you can encourage an enemy to put his damage where you want him to, but if he's willing to be inefficient, you cannot force his hand. F&E is very similar in that regard, except for carrier groups. In SFB, you CAN shoot the frigate first, but if you want the CLE, you can ignore the EFF, and if you want the carrier first, go nuts.

Still, in SFB, you're likely to sweep the 10 hex fighters first, and then look to the enemy fleet, having cashed in your cheap points, then turn and start waist-phasering and outrunning the football of drones. That's something that makes no sense at all if you look at it through F&E glasses.


KH,

Thank you.

I especially pity the Kzinti manufacturer that ended up locked into a drone supply program. Given the fact that the conventional wisdom pre-general-war led to the notion that the "mighty" pre-war stockpile would be plenty for any future conflict, I can only imagine what "lifetime deal" they settled for.

You can almost hear him screaming: "What? MORE drones? I just sent you a thousand. What do you mean, ONE engagement? Augh!"

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 12:46 pm: Edit

"Ah, but don't worry, sir. Our best military analysts have concluded this war will be over in 8 months, top end. Our supply contracts won't put us at a loss until the 11th month at this rate of usage, so we still have a tidy profit facing us."

-Quote, late Y168...

By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Mark, SFB only lists differing EPV and BPV in extreme cases.

if it listed them for everything that had differeing costs then all CW's, FF's, and DW's would have split costs (with the EPV being lower) while BCH's, DN's, and all varients would have split costs with the EPV being higher.

in large part this is the result of the fact that F&E (and it's real economics) didn't exist for a long time (and wasn't a big factor in SFB for longer) and so most of the ships were published without considering their construction costs and it's too disruptive to go bach and change it at this point