Archive through January 14, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E PRODUCTS:
F&E Future Products (Far Term):
F&E Defensive Operations:
Bombers:
Archive through January 14, 2005
I have no clue what this rule would be and little interest in adding them. So far as I'm concerned, they're subsumed into the fighter factors on PDUs.
Now, if somebody were to study the SFB material on bombers intently (hint: don't even try if you haven't read all of J2) and could come up with a rule that made sense and actually accomplished something, I would consider it.
My assumption is that this would be a counter (possibly single-sided meaning it would bounce to Nebulous Operations) which you plunk on a planet and say "this planet has bombers" and then the bombers would have some special rule or something. Maybe a bomber squadron would be six spacecraft, 12 combat factors, and have a crippled side (the only attrition unit with one)? Dunno. See what you can think up.
A big difference is that a bomber has maybe 4-5 times the firepower of a contemporary fighter, but takes only twice as much to kill. I'm not sure I see the advantage of allowing them to have a crippled side, since a bomber doesn't really take damage any better than two fighters. I might argue that a bomber squadron should be something like 9-6 -- but heavy fighters don't distinguish attack and defence in F&E, and six heavy fighters is much easier to kill than twelve normal fighters in SFB (cf. 8 to kill the heavy fighters in F&E and 6 to kill normal fighters, versus 96 to kill the heavy fighters in SFB and 144 to kill the normal ones). Just allowing a bomber squadron to have more factors but without distinguishing attack and defence would be effectively the same as allowing heavy fighters or PFs in Y168.
In short, without a reworking of the heavy fighters rules (not going to happen, I expect!) I can't really see how bombers can be represented as distinct from heavy fighters or PFs in F&E and still be faithful to their representation in SFB.
Does simply adding up SFB damage points work for this kind of analysis? Wouldn't you also have to figure out how competent each kind of fighter is at mitigating damage (though phasers for shooting down seeking weapons or build in EW pods or whatever)?
The following is a proposal to add Bombers to F&E in kind of a backwards way. I took the approach that the existing rules for planetary fighters were actually the rules for bombers. I then allowed bases to replace their bombers with fighters for a higher cost. The primary ability that the converting to fighters gives to a PDU is that the fighters can be transfered to ships and bases. Some additional ability for fighters might be appropriate, like supporting ground assaults or something.
-----------------------------------------------------------
* The fighter factors on Planetary Defense Units are actually bombers. As bombers cannot operate from ships, the rules about not being transferable makes greater sense. From here on, these will be referred to as a PDU-B. By default, existing rules regarding fighters and PDUs apply to bombers. Bombers cost 1/2 EP per factor or 3 EP for a standard PDU-B.
* A separate type of base is added to the game, call a PDU-F. A PDU-F is basically the same as a PDU-B except that the fighter factors are really fighters. A PDU-F may transfer its fighters to/from ships and bases [overrides (501.62)]. Fighters cost 1 EP per factor or 6 EP for the PDU-F.
* A PDU-F is created by (a) upgrading a PDU-B for 3 EP, (b) paying the extra 3 EP when the PDU is built, or (c) paying 3 extra EP under (441.3).
* After PF deployment, both PDU-F and PDU-B may operate 3 PF each.
* The F-15 squadrons given to the Federation under rule (502.95) based on a variant of a PDU-F refered to a PDU-V. A PDU-B or PDU-F is converted without cost when placed by (502.95).
* The heavy fighters which operate from Kzinti PDU under rule (530.211) may be added to PDU-F or PDU-B; they are refered to as PDU-FH and PDU-BH. A PDU-FH or PDU-BH may not operate PFs.
* When the Federation gets double fighter complements under (502.91), fighter and bomber squadrons can be mixed by the owner. These bases have the following designators PDU-FF (12 fighter factors), PDU-BB (12 bomber factors), PDU-FB (6 fighter and 6 bomber factors), PDU-FV (14 fighters including a F-15 squadron), and PDU-BV (8 F-15 factors and 6 bombers).
* Megabomber packs can be purchased under (535.0). Bomber packs add +2 to a bomber squadron and cost 5 EP. Megabomber packs are different from megafighter packs and cannot be interchanged.
umm, john, I thought you could transfer fighters to PDU's, even if you couldn't transfer them from PDU's
although since it's so easy to kill the PDU's nobody bothers to shoot at the fighters specificly
Why can't we just leave PDUs alone and continue with the overall Strategic game, rather than trying to get every little thing from SFB ported over to a GRAND STRATEGY game.
JW, An interesting idea, bringing bombers into the mix without making them powerful or a hassle. Of course, the PDU-F might turn out to be TOO good at, say, a homeworld, since you could forward fighters like a carrier, and thus out-of-system. This would make the Kzinti capitol even more scary (assuming the home planet was too frightning to assault), since they would become de-facto FCRs for the outlying system battles.
I'm not certain of the cost, or if the ability is too powerful / too wierd, but it's definitely a novel approach.
CF: Not a constructive criticism.
CF: Considering the number of things from F+E that have been crammed into SFB, it's nice to see stuff going the other way...
Funny, I have the opposite view. IMO, there is way too many rules from SFB that have been forced into F&E that don't belong. F&E is a strategy game and there are many things that belong in SFB and should have stayed there. (Megafighters for one, and now bombers. Just abstract them into existing counters and let's not have another page of pointless rules).
For once, I have to agree with the naysayers - we don't need additional rules for bombers. I usually like to explore new ideas, but we just don't need this. Just assume they are on some planets as part of the fighter complement.
Some planets would have lots of older fighters, some would have fewer more modern fighters, some planets would invest in just a handful of bombers, but the net effect in the grand strategy game of F&E is that the *average* PDU would have 6 factors of fighters.
As an aside, I've always sort of assumed that the Romulans would not waste their limited economy on building full squadrons of fighters on far flung battlestations or newly surveyed planet out in the middle of nowhere. Instead, I assume that the fighter factors there are in fact old sublight and partial warp powered hulls that cannot be upgraded to useful warships. The old ships, by coincidence, just happen to be worth 6 points. The first battle they are destroyed, they would then be replaced with real fighters.
The only reason I would support bombers added to F&E (as additional forces, not as a replacement of the usual fighters), would be if it were determined that the usual defenses are no longer enough. Fleet firepower has been increasing with each supplement, so maybe bombers should be added to each and every planet? Not yet, I would say, but I am willing to be persuaded.
Or, given what you said in your post, just bump up the number of fighter-factors given to PDU and say "the increase in factors is both due to larger numbers and to more advanced designs".
PDUs aren't allowed to transfer fighters and I don't plan to add an ability for them to do so.
Idea is now dead - Moving on.
John Wyszynski:
Good attempt, though. An innovative approach that seemed to give some dimension to the differences between fighter armed PDU's vs Bomber armed PDU's.
Also note atleast two things happened here.
SVC made a constructive comment, but did not close the topic or pronounce the subject closed.
IMO he gave us an indication that transfering fighters is not an option here, (but implied that if a sufficiently strong case with supporting proof were offered...) 
The second is that a universal rule(one that would change the manner in which PDU's function) is neither wanted or desired... (Cfant could have handled it better, but thats the CFANT touch... congrats, you have received your baptism of fire having been shot at by Cfant. wear the badge with honor, you are in an august company!)
May I suggest going back and look at what SVC posted originally?
SVC Posted:
"...this would be a counter (possibly single-sided meaning it would bounce to Nebulous Operations) which you plunk on a planet and say "this planet has bombers" and then the bombers would have some special rule or something. Maybe a bomber squadron would be six spacecraft, 12 combat factors, and have a crippled side (the only attrition unit with one)? Dunno. See what you can think up."
If it were me, I would suggest following SVC guidance: a single sided counter for inclusion with Nebulous Operations, that would be placable on an existing PDU to represent the presence of Bombers...(beware, all you coalition members...muhawahhahaha with some sort of factor printed on it.
Now just what effect bombers would have is problematic.
Any suggestions?
Ok, if it needs to be candy coated for some people.
In a Grand Strategy game such as F&E, there must be things subsumed and rationalized into the greater scheme of the game.
Mega-Fighters has already taken us down a road where, for the Feds at least, each type of fighter now is represented and they do not mix. This causes more paperwork and is more than a small irritation when trying to figure out what to buy and where it needs to go.
Doing this again, this time for PDUs-the most generic thing you can get, will add yet another layer of un-needed complexity to a game system that is already complex. Many people do not know how to use all the rules we already have in print.
For this reason, and many others, I cannot support the idea of trying to mold a NEW PDU rule for fighters and bombers.
JW, quite so ... a change of direction is warrented.
I would reccommend that the counter not have as grand an effect as doubling the fighter factors. Such a thing would be overpowering, especially if it affected each PDU on the planet. I would reccomend that the bomber counter be a flat effect independent of the number of PDU on the planet.
To waive my two cents past the design process here, I'd suggest something simple and easy to record that had a small, yet predictable effect. Something on the order of "X EP to produce. Limit Y in service. Bombers add +Z COMPOT. Counter is destroyed with last PDU ..." and we're done.
Alternatively, if that smacks too much of megafighters, and a special rule / special feel is needed here, think of what bombers do; they offer a longer operational range than fighters. A bomber squadron would field less craft than a fighter squadron, but each would hit harder, so on average it would be a wash. Hence, we shouldn't be adding COMPOT, but rather mobility. So, you pay X EP, and a planet gets the "bombers" counter, which permits its fighters to react off and offensive strike off the planet as if the planet was a full carrier. No transferring to ships, but the one-hex range. (Note: This would be a mess in capitol systems, as the capitol planet would buy bombers so that it could send its 48-120 fighters out to protect the outlying planets, while the starbase(s) kept the capitol planet safe.)
Cfant, feel free not to support bombers, along with your many others. I'll let SVC decide what he wants in his game.
Mark, your approach may be workable.
Would a differentiation between Heavy and medium bombers be appropriate?
The Fed's start with the (IIRC) only heavy bomber in the game in year 168.
The other races begin with medium bombers, and gain the heavies years later. would 2 different counters (say one being '+6' for the Heavy bombers, and '+3' for the medium bombers work?
and say that each counter represents a single PDU?
perhaps a rule (something to the effect of) no more than 1/2 or all PDU's in a single hex may be bombers?
Oh, and don't worry about Cfant and his candy coated opinions. SVC has demonstrated quite often that he is capable of making his own decisions.
Our task is to present the case as clearly and as well supported with data as we can make it.
Our task is to present the case as clearly and as well supported with data as we can make it.
Why does there need to be a case made? Is this needed? I really don't think it adds any adventure, mystery, unique strategy, or any fun to the game. There is really no reason to increase the number crunching of this game. Why do you guys persist in turning this into SFB with every little thing needing to be included. Please Stop..please.
Jeff Wile you'd be wise to lay off your keyboard once and awhile and listen to what Chris has to say instead of finding out where he is on a subject and ridiculing him and his opinions. Your constant belittling of a Staff member in front of the paying customers really deserves a permenant ban from this board. I really cannot believe you've lasted this long the way you carry on. I'd venture to say that 30% of your posts are directed at this.
Jeff, the difference between heavy and bombers bombers should be ignored, it just takes fewer (more expensive) heavy bombers to have the same effect as more (cheaper) medium bombers
however I really think this is a moot point becouse right now PDU's are only purchased by alliance capitols that are at risk of falling (ok, not quite that bad, but pretty close) so adding another varient of them is not likly to have much effect on any game
Lawrence, cfant is opposed to just about every proposal, also what staff position does he hold? I know he's a regular posted here, but was unaware that he was on the staff
CFant and I are both considered "staff" as we get the proofing PDF versions of the rules before publications, along with SFrazier, Trent Telenko (IIRC) NickB (duh), JeffL (duh again) (also free copies of the product once it's printed).
Chris (by my interpretation) has realized that this shall be another one of those COMPOT creaps (or just a way to complicate accounting), whereas the COMPOT increases steadily by each new introduction. But this time, since Bombers can only be used effectively defensively, shall make planets harder to take for the attacker (because of more damage inflicted by the Defense).
To keep things balance the (COMPOT, density, shipcount, etc take your pick) shall have to be implimented to keep things balanced for the Coalition in the early part of the game. As Medium Bombers are in use by Y167 (usually), and the Fed B52 is in use by Y167.
Introducing Bombers shall increase be another COMPOT creap, an accounting nightmare potentially, require more counters (single sided potentially)
During AO development, I suggested each PDU was given a 1-pt mauler effect to represent the P-4s, it was rejected. Considering that was a minor bonus to give the Kzinti's something to inflict additional damage to fight battlegroups during the early turns, giving the bonus COMPOT from Bombers would be even more powerful, IMO.
Just because ChrisF can see this, and recognize it as bad, and voices it as a bad idea, he should not be dismissed out of hand.
Just because ChrisF, and a lot of others of us, have seen lots of suggestions that shall add unnecessary complications to the game, like the countless proposals we've seen like trying to add "maintence" to F+E.
David, The point was (mostly) because the history denotes a difference by virtue of the different year in service dates.
Secondly, I suspect that there will be no difference in PDU's. The only change would be a single sided counter that would identify bombers being present. Part of what I thought this discussion was about is to determine what effect (if any) the bombers would have that is significant enough to justify the distinction.
I personally want bombers as they do make a it much harder to take planets in SFB. Our group has playtest rules that we use based on the factors in Cl28. The rules simply state that Bombers cost the same is fighters, are treated as 14 factors for heavy, 12 for light, with exceptions for the Feds which are
B-52 14
FB-111 11
B-2 15
B-1 13
Planets(including colonies) can build there own bombers.
Colonies, FDU's, Minor planets are limited to 1 squad of either Heavy or Medium Bombers.
Major Planets can have 2 squads.
Tugs must be used to transport bombers to FDU's.
If you guys will forgive the intrusion of a lurker who doesn't play F&E (but buys F&E products and follows the discussion boards for the strategic background information), a squadron of 6 heavy bombers in SFB has a lot more raw firepower than a squadron of 12 fighters or 6 heavy fighters. If you are going to represent them accurately in F&E, the COMPOT creap that Scott Tenhoff is concerned about will occur.
I think that there are too many tactical additions to a strategic level game. Personally I would not like to see bombers added as they should be left on a tactical level. I see no reason to create and add yet another fighter type, there are enough allready.
Now that we have included mega fighters in the game I don't see how you can avoid including
Bombers. The bottom line is that they do exist and should be in the game. The bombers will also help counter the massive Klingon fleet on Fed border build up problem that has been occuring and that has been complained about.