Lawrence Bergen:

Scott Tenhoff has presented a clear & convincing case arguing against including bombers in F&E.

Cfant failed to express the same position with the same level of professionalism, discussion or attention to detail...

The difference is that Scott approached the subject with an open acceptance that he was addressing a peer group that would welcome his opinion and information.

I think the comparison is striking.

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 01:08 pm: Edit

I've heard of the Fed border buildup problem, but have never actualy seen it in any game that I have participated in, nor actively watched on the boards with the exception of one (a Grant vs Chuck game). In that one the Klinks made a good push into Fed space but were eventually pushed to a stalemate on that front despite the heavy early Klingon ship superiority.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Slow bombers aren't much. I could see fast bombers (Y177 or so) being added at some slow rate (so many per turn, double cost for more) from that date. This would basically be a new kind of PDU (PBU?) which might be produced by upgrading PDUs. Do we really need it? Hard to say.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Jeff, the point is that after hearing a "Lets making killling ships more efficent to get rid of ship #'s for the 20th time."

Chris answers "It's not necessary."

I don't answer mostly, because Chris already has, he's quicker on the response, and I let some threads simmer a while. It's as plain and simple as that. The only reason I answered regarding you disregarding Chris so readily because he wants to keep the Strategic Setting of F+E. Why doesn't it matter if the "6" factor on a PDU is 12 F4s, 6 B52s, or 12 F20s? It doesn't, that's semantics, and nothing else. Someone's then going to demand that the Gorn BC/CA needs to be represented because you know the BC gains 2 PlasF over the CA w/ the refits and no other race gains to weapons like that, blah blah blah. It's all stuff that would need to be recognized with a magnifying glass at the level F+E is supposed to represent, STRATEGIC.

Why not play a WW2 naval game (lets say Victory in the Pacific ) where there are 2 US cruisers with 8 12" guns, 1 w/ 4 dual turrets, and one w/ 2 quad turrets have different counters. ((Side note, I know of know US cruiser with quad turrets, it's an example)) It doesn't matter at the level the game is supposed to represent.

re: Fast Bombers only

This shall just include some new rule (and counters) for something that's going to take the few EP's that are laying around. Gee decide Megafighters, PFs, X-ships (once Y181 comes around), etc. All during the time of economic exhaustion. Why get into that detail again?

6 Medium Fast Bombers (B1, ZB3, etc) shall probably have the same power as 6 Mega Heavy Fighters, and Mega HF's gained a whole +1 Attack bonus, for 3EPs.

Heavy Fighters can get replaced by FCRs, Bombers won't be able to get replaced until the End Phase.

What would the appeal be for Bombers over Mega HF's?

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Scott, well put mate.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:30 pm: Edit

What would the appeal be for Bombers over Mega HF's?

Bekuze bomberz iz kewell?

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:49 pm: Edit

The question isn't 'should SFB material be included', it's 'how'. Including bombers would be akin to including stats and/or rules for the various refits, something that is abstracted under the justification that the refits procedded more or less at the same time for everyone, thus preserving the relative combat capabilities of ships.

The danger of going down into what are tactical aspects is amply pointed out when Akula used the inclusion of megafighters as a reason not to exclude bombers; the slope has begun getting slippery. Bombers (and megafighters) are nice bits of chrome, but with the added level of complication, end up adding too much complexity for not enough of a return on playability.

If, and it's a big 'if', bombers need to be introduced, far better to keep it simple, and go with giving players an option to build a bomber PDU, like SVC suggested.

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 03:06 pm: Edit

The only appeal I would see for Bombers over Mega HFs would be that I could see Bombers having longer 'legs' than Mega HFs.

This would allow PDUs (PDBs?) to perform offensive fighter (bomber) strikes, the same as Base Fighters/PFs.

How about this take on it....

PDUs are normally a collection of fighters and slow bombers. As the General War progressed, battles often occurred within range of such PDUs, but the local defense force was unable to participate, due to the speed of the fighters and bombers, the logistics in supporting them at long ranges, and the doctrine which restricted them to local defense. In Y177, the introduction of the Medium Fast Bombers addressed some of the issues which prevented PDUs from supporting battles within their range.

1) A PDU supporting Medium Fast Bombers (MFB) is refered to as a PBU
2) A PBU costs 5 more EP than a PDU. Each race is allocated a number of free PBU upgrades. (Per turn / year / total; open for discussion). Since this is a fighter upgrade, it cannot be paid for with a CoE.
3) MFB have 7 attack factors, and take 7 damage to destroy. (similiar to Hvy Fighters / F111s) (should this be 8? If so, need to up the cost by 1 or 2).
4) MFB can launch Offensive Fighter Strikes and use Reaction Movement, similiar to fighters/heavy fighters/PFs assigned to a base. They are limited to a one hex range. This is an exception to rule XXX.XX (need to find reference).
5) Replacement / Combat Loses:
a) MFBs cannot be replaced by a FCR or a Tug with a Heavy Fighter Resupply Pod (need to get correct pod nomenclature).
b) MFBs cannot land on a Carrier if their base is destroyed.
c) MFBs can land at a PDU on the planet they were originally based or at another system within that hex. If that PDU survives the combat round, it can be upgraded to a PBU during the next economic phase at a cost of 1 EP. This is an exception to the production limits given in 2 (open to discussion).
d) MFBs can be replaced by a Fighter Depot

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Not bad, Craig, though I'd get rid of 5C; yeah, it means effectively losing the bombers, but they should be lost if they don't have the proper servicing facilities. While B52s may have been able to land on some of the really long runways at some fighter bases, not having any support in place meant the B52s were effectively dead.

I think a 3EP cost for 2) would be better, with an absolute production limit of PBUs per turn in addition to a limited number of free upgrades/new construction.

I do have a question regarding reaction and such. Will PBUs have 2 fighter factors, similar to how carriers with heavy and regular fighters are handled, with the bombers being the only factors able to react, or will the PBU simply have a 'fighter' factor of 7 (or 8) where all 7 (8) pts can be used?

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 04:08 pm: Edit

frankly I think the slope started to get slippery back in 86 when the satement was made that refits weren't shown to simplify things, but the F5L was listed seperatly and given 20% more offence and defense then the F5

as far as bombers go how about letting a bomber base exist without the ground bases that make up a PDU

so instead of a PDU at 3(6) you could build a bomber base at 0-3(9)

same compot, same damage to destroy, but more attrition units that will come back next turn if it isn't destroyed (not a common situation)

if this can be combined with a PDB then the result would be a 3-6(9) which would be a little better then a PDU, but would cost more

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 04:16 pm: Edit

The problem shall still exist though, that a PBU shall die first over a PDU.

Everyone shall do the 10 damage to kill it, and then be forced to shoot through his minus points, then to shoot at the PDU.

There can't be many ways to not to allow it, as the Medium Bomber Base is a single Small Ground Base (the Heavy Bomber Base a single Medium Ground Base).

You shall be spending money for something that will die quicker.

re: F5L

That just has shown the designers bias for the Klingons for 17 years now.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 04:21 pm: Edit

I find the justification given in the designer's notes for why certain ships have the factors they do to be quite logical and satisfactory and really was the only way to go using a factoring system of base 10 instead of base 100.

One rule I'd seriously like to see done away with is the newer leader rule; it was fine simply providing extra CR.

Maybe all we need do to simulate bombers is to increase the fighter factors on PDUs but add in a restriction that PDU fighters can only transfer to another PDU. It would be similar to how the Fed fighters magically change and yet would solve the problem from the older versions of F&E where the F-14/15s had to be tracked seperately.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Why make it even more complicated than it is already.

That would be feeding Cfants paranoia more than is probably good for chris. (rattle what cage?!? ME?!? surely you jest! I wouldn't rattle Cfants cage! (BAM!) that would be needlessly antagonistic! BANG besides, he might not like it. BOOM! oops. hey, chris, you okay there?!



Anyway, making a new counter or creating a new class of PDU or PDB counters is (IMO) going in the direction that SVC indicated he had little interest in.

I enjoy a good debate (maybe more than others do) but I don't think we get a good result or material benefit in pursuing that line.

the original idea was to include a single sided counter that indicated the presence of bombers... to me that is an addition to an existing PDU... does not change the factors of the existing PDU structure in any way other than the existance of the single sided counter being present.

What we have not done yet, is determine just what advantages having one or more squadrons of bombers gives the PDU compared to what is available to the PDU without bombers present.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 04:54 pm: Edit

The F5L isn't a refit, it is a variant.

I could have sworn that the planetary bomber unit counter was my idea.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 04:54 pm: Edit

The major problem that I see with Craig's proposal is that it doesn't give Bombers enough compat these things are seriously more offensively effective then Heavy Fighters. I also don't really want to see new PBU's I would rather just see a counter that could be added to existing Planets and FDU's. Bombers make attacking a planet drasticly harder in SFB(especially 177+) and I think this should be shown in F&E. I think that adding a Bomber squad gives a planet better defenses then a stationed DN and compared to the Mega A-20's the Bombers are at least a 12 to 14 on the Compat scale.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 05:00 pm: Edit

One advantage of Bombers over Mega Fighters is that Bombers are supposed to be easier to build then fighters according to J2 so they should be cheaper.
Also its a matter of player preference some people myself included want this type of detail!! I personally play with the DDL and DDG counters in Cyberboard and there are people like that out there.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 05:19 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

6 Medium Fast Bombers (B1, ZB3, etc) shall probably have the same power as 6 Mega Heavy Fighters, and Mega HF's gained a whole +1 Attack bonus, for 3EPs.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 05:24 pm: Edit

SVC:

It was your idea, (and I think if you look back, you have been credited (and quoted) several times.)

For some reason, the debate keeps getting side tracked into the "change the PDU" line.

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Thanks for all the feedback.

I'll try another cut at this this weekend, focusing on a Bomber Upgrade Counter, instead of a PBU. I'll probably base it on the Kzinti Heavy Fighter upgrade that was in AO. I'll also upgrade their COMPOT and associated cost.

Now a SFB question. Is a Bomber Base in addition to the normal Fighter Bases in a PDU or in place of?

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 09:48 pm: Edit

Keep bombers out, or keep them optional. I'd much rather see counters used to provide more ships than yet another series of markers we have to keep track of.

Then again, why not toss them in? As long as they're in a module, they're effectively optional, so those of us who think the game is fine, fun and playable without megafighters and bombers and Legendary Accounts can play the F&E we want, and those players who missed their chance at a micromanagement feast because Campaign for North Africa went out of print before they started playing wargames can have their fun, too.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:56 pm: Edit

Which points out the advantage of F&E. the ability of players to purchase the force pool as part of the production phase.

Craig Tenhoff:

Look at the initial SVC post from september, where he posted quote"So far as I'm concerned, they're subsumed into the fighter factors on PDUs."

My guess would be that the Bomber base substitutes for 1 or more of the PDU's in the system. (depending on Minor world, Major world, or Capital world).

If I may make a suggestion, the single sided counter would be on a "per PDU" basis, so that if there are multiple Planetary Defense Btn's present, more than 1 counter could also be present.

have you decided what effect the bombers would have in the hex? is it going to be an increase in COMPOT or some other idea?

I think you should consider it carefully, as in the Fed Home world hex, the 20 BTN limit has a truely devastating potential. if you go with 3 COMPOT per Squadron, 20 counters would add 60 COMPOT on top of the existing defenses... and that would make a potential Coalition attack on Earth quite challenging.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Actually, Scott and I have been F&E Staffers since FO, just look on the cover.

Lar, Scott, thanks for the backup guys

By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 03:16 am: Edit

Right, so it basically looks exactly like it did back at the time of my last post. Either:

A) Bombers add compot to the planet. (This is simple and quick, but causes COMPOT creep)

B) Bombers give range to the fighters on the planet, giving the PDUs limited carrier functionality. (This gives no COMPOT creep and gives utility to PDU fighters, but adds complexity.)

If there are no further reccomendations here, perhaps it's time to think about which of these suggestions better advances the game, so that we can make rational suggestions for when the "this planet now has bombers" token eventually gets printed.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 10:01 am: Edit

At a strategic level, B does not apply. A is questionable at best.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 10:36 am: Edit

Several people have stated that Bombers are very effective in SFB. Infact, Davod Kass posted:

guote: "One difference between fast bombers and regular fighters is that the bombers have much more endurance than the fighters in combat. Maybe they shouldn't be destroyed by the loss of their PDU until the end of the turn (or enemy fire)? This is longer than reasonable, but would fit the granualrity of F&E."

What if the single sided counter represented the "inherent toughness" of bombers so that they have the following abilities:

1. the Bomber factors may only be destroyed by directed damage attacks.
2. the Bomber counter adds +1 BIR (per counter, cumulative) for planetary assaults. (the advantage here, is that there would be no COMPOT factor creep).
3. The Bomber counter remains in combat after the destruction of its PDU for the current combat round only. it must be removed after combat is resolved, and can only be replaced as part of the production phase (where the player must purchase the counter when he upgrades the PDU(s)).