Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through January 14, 2005	25		01/14 12:58pm
	Archive through January 15, 2005	25		01/15 10:36am
	Archive through September 30, 2005	25		09/30 04:50pm

Hmmmm.....

Trent, couple of questions for you:

(First note that I am not attacking the idea!!!)

Take the Federation as an example.

Question#1. Are you suggesting that the 'KIT Bombers' are the same as (for lack of a better term) Purpose built bombers? (compare the Cap Log article information in cap log#31)

for example, the Kit bombers were the B32, B24 and B26 conversions while the purpose built bombers were the B-17, B-25 and B-29.

Think it thru before you answer as the proposal will need to address why they are the same factors as the later (and better designs) of the B-1, B2 and B3.

there also needs to be "room" for the B-52, B36, B-47, B57 B58 and the XB-70 types.

If you say that they are the same, (the easiest solution in one sense) you violate history because many of the early designs were clearly inferior. (note the write up on the B-17 and B-36 in particular).

If you indicate that they are different, then there are up to 7 classifications reflecting all the types. (Say that the combat factors (in F&E terms) vary from 0-0 (for the weakest versions that amounted to little more than "free hits" on the "kit bombers" such as the B-17, B25 and B-29) to 2-2 for the B-3 after year 184. (hypothetical unit).

the other values that would conceivably fit would be 0-1, 1-0, 1-1, 1-2 or 2-1.

Pricing could be in constant terms (there being no inflation in F&E) but the COMPOT could have considerable variation.

Qustion#2. If you allow "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", you are inflating the established limits on defenses beyond the established limits in F&E.

The question is how to balance the option in a "reasonable way"... and at what economic cost?

If the increase of a PDU COMPT of 8-10 points costs 8-10 points it will be one of the better deals around on a COMPOT/Econ Point ratio.

If you make it better than that, (ie 8-10 Compot costs 4 Econ points, it would seriously upset the established game balance.

If you make worse than 1:1 then its a "Ho HUM" change and nobody will bother with the option.

Just curious to find out where you are going to take this idea...

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 03:44 am: Edit

I've been looking at the kit bombers as well. I was toying with the idea of a unit that could be created almost at will as civilian shuttles were converted to military use for the duration of the battle.

Kit bomber "squadrons" can only be made at systems large enough to have large numbers of transport shuttles handy (so systems only, not colonies).

An HFS is 5/10 BPV, the B-24 is 6/12 BPV. If the "kit" is only 1 or 2 BPV, there could be kits scattered all across the Federation. Converting the shuttles and sending them into battle would have a very low cost.

Initial cost, that is.

First, these ad hoc squadrons are going to suck a lot of drones out of the local supply system, causing problems for military units further down the grid. The cost of outfitting a kit squadron is equal to paying for drone bombardment points (per battle hex? per round?).

Secondly, the loss of the kit bombers has an affect on the economy of the system. These shuttles have to be replaced every time they are destroyed (at PDU fighter costs). The cost of having your civilian transport infrastructure trashed during every raid or engagement is going to add up. As a mercy rule, the shuttles do not have to be replaced if the system is devestated or captured.

Regarding the F-7, I'm inclined to ignore it for this rule. These (ineffective) fighters would have to replace working shuttles, something that kits do not do. Kit bombers can be switched from civilian to military use, while F-7's are a permanent choice made long before the battle starts. Basing F-7's is going to be no different than basing any other kind of fighter, so I don't see them appearing anywhere except for fighter bases or as casual fighters on warships.

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Why risk a ship or fighter when a few mass-drivers or ships with tractor beams can sit in an asteroid belt or ort-cloud and spend months nudging rocks and chunks of ice at a targets anticipated position when the main attack is due.
On this basis bombers will become a varient of drone bombardment ships. Say 1-5(2); the 1 point attack being Phaser IIIs to keep rock fragements from damaging the ship. Also Big Plasma now gets to use those drone bombardment boxies on the battle card

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 02:45 pm: Edit

The problem with that is that it takes MONTHS to do it and ships can get there in SECONDS. Have you seen the Star Trek movie where the Enterprise leaves the dock and then leaves the solar system inside one minute?

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Are you talking about accelerating massive objects to near light speed? In SFB, they'd only be moving 1 hex a turn and would likely be visible from 30 hexes or so away. They'd get pounded into space dust well before they ever became a threat. Didn't Kosnett rip off Kumarian's pasties when he tried something just like that?

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 06:03 pm: Edit

In defense of rocks.

A F&E turn is months. It may take months to move rocks around and nudge them on their way but lots of litle nudges wont be seen till things are moving and worthy of the Helmsman attention when on sensor duty. These ships would send hundreds of rocks on their way while in the ort cloud
A hostile rock would need to be totaly pounded into dust (or at least pebbles) in order not to inflict any damage upon impact. The kinetic energy is still there just spread out a tad thinner.
While ships are cleaning up incomming rocks they cant be busy repelling the real ships and drones.
If we apply SFB rules, looking at other current threads, then Maulers should only be able to target static targets too.

If there are no mobile defenses then one can drop rocks on a static target all day with impunity. Possibly these ships could only conduct attacks against PDUs/planets and be more suited to an Early years game. Hey, look what I found at the back of the Imperial War Reserve Hanger.


References to TV/movie
In startrek the movie the Enterprise took minutes just to clear space dock and I belive the "one minute" reference applies to the Transwarp on the Excelsor in ST3.
In the orginal series there is a whole episode devoted to stoping a single asteroid hitting a planet - its the one where Kirk goes all American-Native. 30 minutes of TV time of the enterprise chasing a single rock totaly powerless to stop it. In STTNG they had to toe a ship all the way clear of a planet for the duration of an entire episode just to be on the safe side.
Consider that photon torps can be launched sub or trans light (Enterprise D tech manual). In Translight mode there is a warp feild handoff from the launching ship. Only a few seconds at warp are required to acheive a tatical manuaver (the Picard effect). Even if the mass-driven rock is given an unstable short lived warpfeild it will travel a considerable distance.

Ask the Narn about how the Centuri bombed their planet back to the stone age.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 04:09 pm: Edit

This topic hasnt been active for a while... lets see if there is any interest in reviving it.

What if we try a "different" idea?

We know that Bombers are "subsumed" in the F&E fighter factors of PDU's.

What if we allow F&E players the option of "buying" or "upgrading" bombers by the purchase of a single sided "bomber coin"? (not to be confused with exisitng fighter coins).

If you look earlier in the archives, there have been a number of suggestions for how to relate the various differences in bombers (from heavy to medium, for example or better bombers vs others that "are not as good" say B3 vs B-52 say).

Let the player "upgrade" a specific planets defenses with a single counter... for a established price in Econ Points.

Take a major world with the equivilent of 8 battalions (PDB's) in a single PDU... the Defense COMPOT of 8 batts would be 8*3=24 while it would have 8*6=48 fighter factors.

The question, is what factors would such a "bomber coin" have, and at what price?

I would suggest that any give races PDU could be upgraded by bombers, should the player want, (and assuming he is able to and willing to pay the price).

For what its worth, my suggestion is to NOT increase the COMPOT factors... several people have decried that option as COMPOT creep... soooo, what if the value on the counter imparted some other value in terms of the combat procedure?

For example, if the factor was used to allow a 1:1 directed damage attack instead the normal general attack...

Going back to the situation describing a major world with 8 PDB's in a single PDU... if we set an arbitrary limit of 1/2 of the PDB's could be upgraded to bomber squadrons... and we allow the player to buy 4 bomber coins (1/2 of 8 battalions is 4) then the 4 bomber coins could be (if the value on each coin is just 1) 4*1=4 so 4 points of damage could be used for directed damage attack resolution at 1:1.

Smaller worlds (minor worlds) would be limited by the existing limits on PDB's of 6 so at the 1/2 rate the most a minor world could have in "bomber coins" would be 3.

In the case of a major world, the most allowed for PDB's would be 10 so the maximum number of bomber coins would be: 10*0.5=5

In a Home Capital world, with the limit set at 20 PDB's the limit would be 20*0.5=10... so Earth would, because of having half of its fighters being bomber squadrons would gain a 1:1 directed attack on up to 10 points of damage.

The advantages would be:

1. could be handled thru the existing production procedure, the purchase of the counter(s) would require a tug mission delivery or perhaps a modification to the production of PDU battalions...
2. it doesnt change the combat procedure as the distinction between directed attacks and general damage is already in use.
3. the value of such a directed damage ability can be quantified.

Disadvantages:
1. no COMPOT CREEP. (I list this as a disadvantage, as it does not "track" well with other changes in the F&E game system like that if the Mega Fighters or even the addition of PF's... such rules did infact increase the COMPOT of the battle forces... and perhaps the bomber thing should follow that precident?)
2. the bomber coins need not be double sided, so the counters would not take up an space out of the ship counters of the next product. Might mean that it would have to wait for a F&E product that has need for other single sided counters.
3. the economic cost of such a single sided bomber coin is not stated. Not sure what vaule it should be but I suspect that it will be higher than 1 econ point per point of "bomber counter"... probably 2:1 or 3:1 or even higher... It wouldnt matter as much if the bombers were usable in normal battle forces or deployed on ships or carriers... but with planets being the only effective bases for bombers... we're looking at a sitution where a planetary assault with 100 or 200 or more COMPOT of PDU's, fighters, PF's Mobile bases, BATS, FRD's and Star Bases on top of the 100 or 150+ COMPOT from the defending fleet of ships.

the defending player will not only be able to "dish out" horrific levels of damage in the course of a battle round... but at 1:1 directed damage up to the number of "bomber coins" he has could pick and choose the ships he wants dead.

sort of like having one cake and getting to eat it as well!