1. this makes no sense. no.
2. no justification for this. no.
3. messy and not reflective of the situation. no.

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 01:36 pm: Edit

>Based on my limited experience with bombers in
>SFB, they have massively more firepower than
>heavy fighters. 6 medium fast bombers will
>slice and dice 6 megapacked heavy fighters.

I would not be so confident of that in the case of Federation Mega F-111s and A-20Fs versus fast pack bombers.

1) The ADD-6 on the Fed HF neutralize much of the drone power of enemy bombers.
2) The ability of any HF to HET gives them an absolute mobility advantage over enemy bombers.
3) Bombers lose their firepower more quickly than a mega-HF. Just look at the difference between the Mega F-111 and the FB-111 that has a Fast pack.

The ability of Fed HF to thwack enemy bombers at range when they can double damage from the bomber's fast packs means the bombers will turn them off when the Fed HF close. This causes an even larger mobility disparity.

The Fed Mega F-111 has superior seeking weapon firepower to bombers and an FX P-G besides.

The Mega A-20F carries four photons and can shoot all four of them in nine impulses. If a A-20FM squadron fires the first volly of 12 photons in concentrations of six at two bombers at range eight, they will get two hits on each on average. That degrades a bomber with packs off or destroys them with packs on. The A-20FMs then HET rinse and repeat.


>The slower bombers have much of the firepower
>but are often unable to bring it to bear.
>Upgrading (an invisible, but existing) slow
>bombers could easily give 10+ compot.

The key strength of bombers is their ability to keep ships from closing to range five with the Defsats and ground bases.

The latter are highly vulnerable to both ballistic targeted seeking weapons once the ships positively identify their location and transported marines.

Bomber's seeking weapons and direct firepower keep ships at a distance where Photon/Disr/Pl-F Defsats and Ph-4 ground bases can ginsu shields without effective reply from the ships.

The real point of CVD and CVP carrier designs and their oversized fighter squadrons in SFB was to deal with PDU mobile attrition units while the ships did their thing to ground bases.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 02:30 pm: Edit

Let me clear up a few things because I don't like being quoted by both sides of an argument....

1. From time to time, I change my mind about some things. Other things, I decide and never change my mind.

2. We don't NEED bombers in F&E. We can just assume they are subsumed into PDUs. I said that.

3. If somebody (me or somebody else) comes up with a cute, fun, elegant, or exciting rule which makes it neat to include bombers, we can certainly do that. I said that too.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 02:30 pm: Edit

"The real point of CVD and CVP carrier designs ..."

Hmm... I never knew that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 02:49 pm: Edit

F&E Bombers: higher Fighter Factors than fighters and a little cheaper to buy.

Restrictions: Cannot be moved, cannot pin. Cannot participate in combat not at their location.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 02:58 pm: Edit

History speaks of Fed and Klingon bombers at bases on opposite sides of the original neutral zone holding dogfights halfway between them. See Module J2.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 03:16 pm: Edit

I would expect Bombers to have a longer range than Fighters (not as high as PFs perhaps) - fighters just have their operational range extended by being on carriers.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 05:34 pm: Edit

In F&E, fighters of all types and PFs have the same range.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 06:20 pm: Edit

I'm sorry. I was envisioning Bombers that are added to PDU's (and have the rule be you must add them) would have those restrictions.

You could separately buy Bomber bases that could act like a PF ground base and conduct independant missions. It could exsist with PDUs and help protect the planet it's on but you wouldn't get a discount since the planet doesn't pay part of the cost.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 09:14 pm: Edit

The one point I see with Bomber Bases as an addition that you have to pay for is that the Alliance is all ready spending as much as they can on fixed defenses in the early part of the game. The Coalition will be extreemly short on cash in the late game when they might want to buy them for extra defense. So nobody's going to buy them if they cost more than PDUs and they're too good of a buy if they don't cost any more than PDUs.

Just an observation.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 09:18 pm: Edit

With PFs, cost 0.5 EP, trying to shoehorn in Bombers is going to obe really tough.

Coalition PDUs will be there and upgraded to have PFs at just about the time PFs Bombers would be available. 3xPFs per PDU (6 extra compot) for free....or buy a bomber PDU.

Seems an easy one to me.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Comparing Fed heavies to bombers doesn't really work because Fed heavies are supposed to be PF equivalents, and are much more capable than other races' heavies. Comparing, say, a Kzinti LFS-M to a Klingon ZB-3 makes the bomber side come out much better.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 04:58 am: Edit

a question since I don't have J2 handy.

are bombers supposed to be made obsolete by PF's?

if so then let bombers be less efficiant then PF's, say .5 EP each and 1-2 each (or 2-1, just as long as they are not as good as PF's). let players deploy them prior to PF deployment and when PF's are deployed they replace bombers (and intercepters when/if they get added can basicly be a squadron of bombers that can be carried by a ship)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 11:21 am: Edit

PF's are deployed separately from fighters. ( by that) I mean that as PF's are phased in to the PDU's, they do not reduce or replace the existing fighter groups.

Since the only race that does not deploy fighters happens to be the Federation (atleast the only race that is represented on the F&E Map), is there room to allow the federation to deploy bombers to replace the PF's factors on PDU's that they don't get when all other races get PF's?

I recognise that the "Third Way" addressed this issue already, but following on David Lang's post, it would allow Fed PDU's to have a "poor mans version" of PF's with out introducing Fed PF's, and do it in a way that reflects history (at least for the Feds).

It might also be an option for other races to off set the cost of replacement PF's in the production phase. (specifically, if bombers cost less than PF's and provide almost as much COMPOT) .

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 12:21 pm: Edit

DavidK

One thing that Bombers can't be, is as powerful or more powerful than PFs, that is my reasoning that they shouldn't be more than a 9 compared with a 12 from a PF Flotilla.

The 9 cap from Heavy Megafighters were there just to prevent them from being too close to 6 PFs together.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 03:48 am: Edit

Jeff, the feds get to double the fighters on all bases instead of getting PF's (as well as the 3rd way for the fleet)

giving them bombers on top of this would be overkill.

if bombers can be deployed as a precurser to PF's this isn't just a fed thing, it would be available to everyone.

scott, how about a split compot?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 11:39 am: Edit

David, I did not mean to suggest that the Feds should get bombers on top of doubled fighters, I should have stated "instead of" the doubling of fighter factor.

But that is a moot point with SVC's post.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:22 am: Edit

Heres a serious question for anyone that has played any of the Winds of Fire sectors scenarios.

Would you (as a race that was in exhaustion so this kinda excludes the Feds) pay for any "improved" PDU that would include Bomber factors?

(Think back to how many actual PDUs you built/improved during the game also).

Lets even go so far as to say you can buy 1PDU w/ Bombers for 7 EPs (so a 3-3(9B) unit) once per turn.

Do you think you could of afforded to do it, compared with everything else you had to spend your money on.

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:30 am: Edit

Scott. I've played one and would not have spent the money. I couldn't afford the base ship production much less repairs or minimal conversions as it was. I did not buy a single PDU or base upgrade in the scenario.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 06:40 am: Edit

A proposal for Bomber use in F&E.
Intro. & Background:
After looking at significant information on Bombers, fighters and PFs including SFT, CL, J, J2 and F&E one becomes aware that each of these attrition units functions in a unique manner. It should be necessary to maintain this in F&E to make additional material (bombers) of interest to publish. PFs can be described as disposable attack ships. They were built to be effective; but not expensive enough to morn the loss of. This is reflected by the ‘pay per unit’ and EP v. CP comparison. Fighters have frequently been described as attrition units and force multipliers. They are shuttlecraft and thus easy to replace (arguably more so than even PFs) and they do increase weapon launch abilities tremendously. They do have a downside though. They are easy to kill.
Bombers on the other hand are very powerful platforms that are tied to planetary bodies (thus limited applications) and have much greater durability than their smaller cousins (fighters). Chances are that a bomber will survive a round or two of damage and make it back to base for a patch job before it heads out for another thrashing (of both sides). Their massive weapons loads made approaching a planet close enough to destroy the PDUs a painful experience.

Concept: Bombers were only used on planetary bodies. While there may be an ability to use them in FDUs in a SFB situation, the vast majorities were used to protect planets, their populations, and their EPs. To reflect this, Bombers may only be stationed on major and minor planets and in RARE cases on well-developed colonies.

Cost: Each bomber group may be purchased for 8 EPs

Deployment: Bombers may be purchased for PDUs as follows. When the third PDU is placed on a planet the player has the option of reinforcing the PDU with bombers. Each subsequent group of 3 PDUs qualify a planet for another bomber group up to the following limits:

Capitol: 4 Bombers*
Major: 2 Bombers
Minor: 1 Bomber
Colony: 1 Bomber**

*While one could continue to fortify, for game balance, 4 is the max bombers on any capitol.
** Only Colonies with 2 PDUs and a CB or orbital base can have a bomber group.

Combat: The effect of attacking a planet defended by bombers is frightening. Bombers are not portrayed with CP points but a BIR shift. Each bomber shifts the defending player (and only the defender’s) BIR to the next higher level. The maximum effect that this can produce is a BIR of 10. This is cumulative with any other BIR modifier and the BIR can never be higher than 10.

Destruction: A bomber group is destroyed in a battle by 12 points of damage. This can be through directed damage (2:1). If the last PDU that a given bombers group supported remains. The bomber group will reform after battle (just as fighter groups do).

NOTE!!!
While I have used the term bomber group, please in no way take this as equal to a bomber squadron of six spacecraft. It could be synonymous; however, I have abstracted this and focused on effect and flavor.

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 10:06 am: Edit

>Heres a serious question for anyone that has
>played any of the Winds of Fire sectors
>scenarios.
>
>Would you (as a race that was in exhaustion so
>this kinda excludes the Feds) pay for
>any "improved" PDU that would include Bomber
>factors?


Scott,

In my two play tests of sector B of WoF as a Kzinti I did not buy a single PDU.

However, you have to look at it this way, exactly which rules set will bombers be introduced in? If they are combined with the corps of engineers, which build a free PGB just for showing up, I could see myself building _some_ in the late war.

It is the cost differential between bombers and fighters and PFs that is the key issue.

At 1/2 EP per fighter factor for larger bomber squadrons, at 8-9-10 factors for medium/heavy bombers, it is as or more expensive as six standard fighters and three PF on a normal PDU.

I'd pro-rate the 8-9 compot medium bomber squadron to the same cost as a normal six factor fighter squadron and a 10-11 compot heavy bomber squadron to the cost of an eight compot advanced fighter squadron like the F-15.

I'd limit bomber deployment to no more than one in three PDUs before PF deployment and no more than one in three _fighter squadrons_ after. Think here in terms of a Planet with a co-located BATS/BS or a colony base with supporting PDUs and counting all the fighter squadrons. The first PDU attrition squadron of any deployment location could be a bomber PDU, but the next couple must be fighters until the fourth PDU attrition squadron arrives.

Bomber PDUs would get three PFs like normal PDUs if entitled during PF deployment. The Feds would get another fighter squadron.

Bomber bases would be direct damage candidates and bomber factors from destroyed bases could not transfer to other PDU, ships, non-bomber bases or bomber bases of the wrong type.

Nor could normal fighters be transferred in to replace lost bomber factors between combat rounds, including from FCRs or fighter depots.

Megafighter packs for bombers would not add to the offensive compot of bombers but would add to the defensive. Think (0-1) counters so medium bombers would be (8-9) and heavies (10-11) with a 3 EP cost identical to the Fed F-16 megafighter counters.

The net effect will depend on the various races bomber deployment dates. The Fed B-52 showed up in Y167. During turns of limited war the Feds could make their border planets tougher nuts to crack for a round or two. Cygnus with a Mon+Ftr pallet, six PDU including one F15 (8 compot) and two B-52 (10 compot) squadrons and a full CVA supported battle line could be hurtful to a turn 10 full-scale Klingon invasion of the Federation.

The Kzinti and Hydrans would be able to marginally increase the defenses of their home planets with medium bombers, but directed damage of four bomber PDUs a round mean this will last two combat rounds at most. The net effect will be one more Coalition FF/F5 crippled and one fewer Alliance CL/DD crippled for each round of bomber reduction over the Capitol.

My pegs for all medium bomber squadrons compot would be eight and heavy bomber squadron compot would be ten. I just don’t see the Federation bombers as being superior to other race’s bombers.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:13 pm: Edit

No I would not buy bombers. I'd be too busy trying to by mobile platforms for fighters and PFs.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Think of how powerful a starbase in orbit around a planst with ground based P4s, fighters, bombers and pfs would be. Add in the extra ew gained from the special sensors on the GWS/Planetary control base/ hvy bomber base and you are really upping the innate defense in near space.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 09:49 pm: Edit

So, if BIR is too powerful an effect something akin to the F-111 hybrid fighter/PF concept might be apt. In fact we could use the F-111 rules to allow PDUs to add bombers. It would require some minor notes on deployment and such; but would essentially be the same concept. The tech change in the earlier (169) bombers to that of the F-111s could be offset by the size and weapons load. This would give the same factor & cost.

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Note:

The addition of Federation "bomber kits" for three and four space cargo shuttles in Captain's Log could be represented in a rule similar to that proposed for the Federation F-7.

You buy 8-10 factors of "bomber factors" that don't need a PDU "base" or tug for deployment with a limit of one such squadron per planet or colony.

The F7 and Bomber kit rule could be more sexy for the Feds if they were allowed to buy and deploy them in the inactive fleet areas while they are at limited war and/or place them on colonies build sites before they were fully developed.

The Feds might also want to deliver F7/Kit bombers to neutral planets. This might interact with the diplomacy rules as a die roll modifier.

Any player can deliver ground units and PDUs right now. No one has bothered because of the cost benefit analysis did not pay off.

Diplomacy rules on flipping neutral zone planets on the Fed/Klg, Fed/Rom, and Gorn/Rom borders could change that.