Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through July 31, 2009	25		08/03 05:51am

Yes I do have issue in typing .....yes I do mean.......I feel IF you PUT a cost on Free replacement fighter and TAKE away the free Fighters(and yes do away with free PFs)...that will cut out about 1/2 of carriers that will be builded in the long run...cost of building Carriers go up....and then you get less Carriers on the broad.....and more record keeping no you will not you paid for the fighter replacement WHEN the Battle for the Hex is done....if you bite the issue at the beginning of the game you will not have all that added record keeping then....well that what I see.....mholiver
...I hope it you understand my post now Steve....sorry about that

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 10:29 am: Edit

Steve Cole......Myself and my Brother Jeff are going to start playing F&E this weekend and be playing when we can.....hoping each weekend...we got a couple of House rules I came up with and was planning to used in the game....1st)one is on a new costs on getting ships out of mothball... 2nd)a cost on free replacement frighters... 3rd)No free Fighters Factors ...if you wish I can post the game on the BBS....I was planning to posst after I came home on Monday and post what was going on........what do you think.....mholiver

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 01, 2009 - 11:30 am: Edit

MHO: I don't see much point in posting house rules results and nobody (other than, maybe, me) is going to pay attention to them, but if you want, sure.

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, August 01, 2009 - 11:49 am: Edit

Thanks

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, August 03, 2009 - 05:51 am: Edit

Good Grief.. SVC wanted to remove free fighter factors and there was an almost unaminous vote against that at origins?

I just don't get it... But I now know why my suggestion in F&E2010 thread was DOAd :-(.

For the record, I'm down as voting for the proposal that said eliminate all free fighter factors throughout the whole war. If that is not possible, eliminate them after the PF introduction date or when exhaustion strikes as SVC said.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, August 03, 2009 - 08:35 am: Edit

If, and I hope there isn't, a cost on replacement fighters, then the 2EPs for fighters used on carriers should be lowered. After all the lifetime free replacement of fighters was the reason for the high cost of each fighter factor.

Beyond the introduction of PFs by each empire, except the Federation, the cost of producing, maintaining, manning PFs is much higher than fighters or even heavy fighters and the conversion of the Free Fighter Factors to PFs is very logical and useful.

At the same time any change to fighters and carriers is going to have a very significant impact on game balance. The Lyrans who don't use that many carriers probably won't be affected at all. However, the Kzintis and Hydrans could be destroyed by a really aggressive coalition player under such a proposed system.

Here are some reasons why I think that will happen:

1. The coalition has roughly a 2-1 advantage in ships and ship equivalents at the start of the game over the Kzintis and Hydrans.

2. Beacuse of #1 and the fact that the coalition is on the offense they will reduce both the economy and repair ability of the Kzintis and Hyrdans rather quickly.

3. Without free fighter replacements, fewer units will be built to include defenses such as PDUs. There is no mention of PDUs or Bases getting free replacements or having to pay for them. (I assume they have to pay for them as well.) The Kzintis and Hydrans have to use there free fighter replacements to help counter that 2 to 1 advantage of ships and ship equivalents in #1.

4. Money that would be better spent on building defenses to include carriers and repairs will now be spent on buying replacement fighters for anything does survive.

5. Once the Kzintis and Hydrans are pushed off map they will have no means to even mount a battle force to try and prevent the placement of a single PDU or MB anywhere. They have to repair their fleets. The Kzinti's in particular should have almost every ship they have crippled.

6. Not even the additional rules, Salavage, Diplomats, Trade with the WYN, etc can provide enough income to overcome such a high cost of replacing fighters.

By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Monday, August 03, 2009 - 08:58 am: Edit

My proposal is DOA so it doesn't really matter for the game as a whole. But if it was played, of course you don't have to pay for fighters other than what you use. To build a Z CVS would cost 10+1+.6=11.6, not 23. That is a *lot* of cash saved up front that can be spent on other things. As I noted above, a PDU would now cost only 4.6 instead of 7. Battle Stations and Starbases would be similarly cheaper. I would expect the Z and H to spend more on defenses under my proposal. Fighters would still be the preferred damage sponge as 1/10 EP per damage point is still a bargain.

Cost per damage point taken:

Fighters: .1
5 Pt FF: .2
7 Pt CW: .214
9 Pt CC: .222
PF & other ships: .25

In short, to answer your concerns, fighters are *cheap*. Really, really, cheap under my proposal. Instead of paying for a whole war's worth of fighters upfront, you only pay for what you use. Instead of paying for 5 battles of replacements on a PDU--when you only ever use one because they always die--you only pay for one. I don't foresee how even the Hydrans can't pay, as in my original proposal there would be some compensation for lost free fighters. If you wanted to do a straight conversion of FFF to EPs, that would translate into 120(!) free fighters per turn for most empires.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 03, 2009 - 09:04 am: Edit

If you go back in the history of the game, it usused to be that fighters were free to build but cost to replace. It was a nightmare and was dropped from the rules.

I think we could drop FFFs at some calendar point (Y175, Y178, PF1) and not affect balance and tone down the carrier problem.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, August 03, 2009 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Well, I would say remove as many FFFs as politically possible and rebalance - it would not be that drastic an effect given both sides get roughly equal numbers (if anything, IMHO, coalition helped more by FFF). We are going to have some rebalancing anyway with the new kill rule. But like I now know, its DOA.

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Monday, August 03, 2009 - 12:28 pm: Edit

One suggestion would be to tie in the loss of FFFs to the onset of economic exhaustion. This benefits the Feds, but that would seem to make sense considering their penchance for fighters and carriers.

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 - 11:18 am: Edit

A question for SVC...

Steve Cole:
Now, just me, I want to limit the number of carriers in service, eliminate free fighter factors, and do some other things to demote carriers from godhood to their proper place as a supporting arm

I love the idea but I'm intrigued by what your actual vision is.

IF somehow a magic wand were waved and carriers were rightly placed "as a supporting arm" how would they be used? What sort of fleet & battle force composition do you envisage?

NOT massive lines of carriers I assume! Or would that occur in some locations but not others? In the ideal SFU world, how should carriers really work?

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 03:22 am: Edit

Clarification to the question to SVC above...

I guess what I'm asking is what role would you ideally like to see carriers play in F&E?

(Currently, aside from providing a platform for attrition units, their prime use seems to be to provide a place for heavy units to hide so that only frigates can be killed with DD!)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 10:40 am: Edit

Carriers dominate the game. They should not. That's about as clear as I can get.

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Thank you! It is very useful to have a well stated goal to work towards.