SFB already includes Planetary Control Bases (might be Planetary Control Stations - I'm away from my books at the moment and may be misremembering the name) as a ground base analogy to space control ships. A Planetary Control Base has a PF flotilla, a fighter squadron, a phaser-4, and better shields than most ground bases. I think it also has a special sensor.

Ships and even bases are forbidden from including both PFs and heavy fighters on the same platform. I've never understood why, exactly. But that is the rule and I doubt it will ever be changed. But for the life of me, I don't see why that should apply to ground bases. I propose a "Heavy" Planetary Control Base that would replace the fighter squadron with a heavy fighter squadron, or even a bomber squadron. There would also be an X-tech version. (There is already an X-tech version of the "standard" planetary control base.)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, October 08, 2026 - 01:46 pm: Edit

It is a logical progression, and would fit in with the steps of first generation X ships, followed by Second Generation.

Even late general war x refitted hulls could interact with Alans proposed Planetary Control Base.

Such a step would also fit very well as “filler” for a Module K-2.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, October 08, 2026 - 04:37 pm: Edit

If you really want a heavier planetary control station, you can always simply build a base station on the surface per the rules in (P2.7). That would be the "next step up", so to speak.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, October 08, 2026 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Jessica,

But if the base station has a PF flotilla as attached, it could not also have a heavy fighter squadron. And it could not have a bomber squadron in any case. And if I do want to spend the quatloos for a base station (or larger), I would rather have it in orbit. That way it can maintain and repair ships not capable of landing on a planetary surface (which describes most ships, after all).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, October 08, 2026 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Cost of a "standard" tech planetary control base - 30 BPV

Cost of a standard tech base station - 120 BPV

Cost of an X-tech planetary control base - 38 BPV

Cost of an X-tech base station - 200 BPV

None of the above costs include upgrades, PFs, or fighters. And of course a BS (or BSX) will have a lot more phaser-4s than the GPC (or GPCX). But if the base needs to exert influence over a wide area (beyond effective phaser-4 range), it will have to rely on its PFs and fighters (including bombers, if applicable) and a "heavy" GPC (or GPCX) starts to look like an attractive proposition.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, October 08, 2026 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Imagine both a Planetary Control Base and a Heavy Bomber base connected on the same Power Grid.

Hostile ship comes in and needs to get within five hexes of the two Phaser-IVs on the two bases.

Heavy Bombers fly up along with fighters and gunboats.

Add a Type-H Drone Base (I can't remember exactly what they're called) and you've got a one-after-another load of the immense Type-H drones also going after that ship that's got to come within five hexes to find ANY of those bases.

Add a minefield out there to slow the approach...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, October 08, 2026 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Regardless, putting a Planetary Control Base on a populated world (in F&E terms means a Capital World, Major World, Minor World or a Colony) would be a major upgrade to planetary defenses.

Almost as significant, would be the ability to deploy a Planetary Control Base in/on an uninhabited world, planetoid, Moon or Large Asteroid in any F&E sector/hex.

You get the benefit of a BTS without having to pay for the Mobile Base>Base Station>BTS upgrade costs.

Add in the BPV of a PF flotilla, a Fighter or Bomber Squadron, a pair of phaser IV, and if Alan is correct about the Special Sensors, a EW capacity.


Best deal in town.

It would be a boon for SFB scenarios for pick up games, but it potentially could seriously unbalance F&E.

Kind of surprised that none of the F&E guys haven’t already responded…

Perhaps it is because such a PCB (Planetary Control Base) would not extend the supply grid.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, October 09, 2026 - 11:13 pm: Edit

I'm not entirely convinced that there should be an Alpha Octant ground base larger than a planetary control base.

Nor would I be in favour or a single Alpha ground base operating both heavy fighters (or bombers) and gunboats at once.

Although, if there was scope for a "GPC-B" - as in, a planetary control base variant with medium or heavy bomber bays in lieu of PF mech-links - well and good.

-----

If a planet is important enough to warrant more of an investment in its fixed defences than a single planetary control base can provide, it might be better to place additional ground bases at other locations on the same hex facing, and/or to other facings.

For example: the Fall of Demorak scenario in SFB Module C3A includes a look at what the LDR capital had installed at the time of the Andromedan conquest in Y195. While not a "full" capital on the level of Earth or Romulus, it might nonetheless help as a useful point of comparison.

-----

Outside of Alpha, there are a variety of planetary control bases in print for several Omega Octant empires in Module Omega #5.

For example: it's noted that after the Iridani liberated their Throne Planet from Andromedan conquest, they installed at least two such bases there as part of their efforts to make sure the home cluster would be better placed to repel any future would-be invaders.

But even over there, I would suggest that few empires would go larger than this, ground base-wise.

With one major exception: the Branthodons. Without the ability to construct deep-range bases, they'd be obliged to construct larger bases - even the equivalent of starbases - as networks of ground installations. But then, with no access to shield technology, they'd have to rely on armour, and on the Dragonships assigned to defend the world in question, to defend themselves.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, October 10, 2026 - 02:12 am: Edit

Gary;

The "heavy" planetary control base would not be "... larger than a planetary control base". It would be the same base except that it would swap out the 12 fighters for six heavy fighters, or bombers. That's a negligible change in the overall "footprint" of the base, compared to the scale of a planet or even a large asteroid.

The analogy might be upgrading an airbase to handle newer, and larger, aircraft. Maybe you would lengthen the runway a bit. You might replace some of the hangers with newer, larger hangers. The runway (and taxiways) might need to be strengthened to handle heavier aircraft. And the actual support equipment would be different. But those are usually minor changes (in size, if not in cost) on the scale of the airbase as a whole.

You say you're not in favor (being an American, I generally use the American English spelling) of a single ground base operating both heavy fighters (or bombers) and PFs at once. OK... but why? You don't say what your objection is, so I can't evaluate it. Does it "break" the game some how? It might be a bit more powerful than the already-existing GPC, especially if the fighter squadron were replaced by a bomber squadron, but it would also be more expensive in proportion. And note that the most powerful, and expensive, component of the defense - the PF flotilla - doesn't change at all. Or is your objection that the arrangement seems technically infeasible? But why would that be the case on the surface of a planet, or even a large asteroid?

Now, I do think you are on more solid ground when you remark that the defenders might be better off deploying more bases, say a PF ground base and a bomber base, rather than consolidating both bases into a single function. I agree that often they would be better off doing that... but not always. One particular example in which deploying two co-located bases would be impossible, is on an asteroid. Note that (P3.4) LARGE ASTEROIDS states

---

Quote:

Only one small or medium ground base can be placed on any given large asteroid, no bases may be placed on small asteroids.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, October 10, 2026 - 02:25 am: Edit

I want to stress again, the real cost of a GPC isn't the base itself. It's primarily the PF flotilla, and secondarily the fighter squadron. Even the GPCX only costs 38 BPV for the base itself. The cost of the proposed upgrade is the cost of replacing a fighter squadron with a heavy fighter squadron (which might actually be a bit cheaper depending on the specific fighters involved) or a bomber squadron. Why do that? Well, why would you ever deploy bombers (or even expensive late-war fighters) instead of cheap fighters? Because the location is worth it (possibly not in its own right but as a strategically useful location as part of a network of defense) and the increased cost buys you a stronger defense.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, October 10, 2026 - 11:35 am: Edit

Actually bombers are more effective than you think.

Look at how much punishment a squadron of (example) of Klingon heavy bombers can dish out. IIRC they have 2 disruptor each and have have how many charges for them? Plus drones and Phasers. Plus chaff...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, October 10, 2026 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Mike, was your comment about bombers being effective addressed to me? I do think that bombers can be very effective. That's why I proposed this upgraded ground base.

Nevertheless, I don't think they are as effective as PFs in most instances. I suppose the Attrition Ship Tactics thread is the appropriate place to discuss why. But at the moment I'm not feeling up to posting any detailed comments. Maybe if I'm feeling better tomorrow, I'll post something in Attrition Ship Tactics about why I believe bombers are still somewhat inferior to PFs in most circumstances.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, October 10, 2026 - 03:52 pm: Edit

You can build any kind of base you want by building the existing ones beside each other. They'll be separate targets (which is an advantage).

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, October 10, 2026 - 05:44 pm: Edit

I assume that, game balance issues aside, there is the matter of logistics to consider.

In Federation and Empire, "standard" fighters (such as the F-18) are the default. Supporting their use is the least complicated option, across most of the Alpha Octant at least.

But, there are separate means of tracking factors for "special fighters" (such as F-14s), "heavy fighters" (F-101s), and "special heavy fighters" (such as F-111s).

Indeed, the "Third Way" Feds have no fewer than seven different types of fighter factor to account for!

Which, of course, is precisely because the UFP did not operate Interceptors or PFs ("dark future" contingencies notwithstanding).

Further, there are only so many of these non-standard fighters one can expect to find on a given ship or base at any given time.

So, while a given base might be relatively easily supported in its use of regular size-1 fighters, things get that much more complicated once larger and/or more specialized fighters are added to the mix - even before one starts to consider the use of gunboats.

Speaking of the "dark future" timeline: I would not expect to see a Federation unit be granted licence to operate both a squadron of heavy fighters and a flotilla of PFs at once - even when faced with the threat of Andromedan conquest.

-----

But, if one wanted to offer a more powerful type of planetary control base than is possible at present, perhaps a better option would be to replace the fighter squadron (and some of the cargo boxes) with a second flotilla's worth of repair-capable PF mech-links (and more repair boxes to go with them)?

Such a base would be more flexible outside of combat, not least since one of the two sets of mech-links could be assigned to a support flotilla.

Better yet, each mech-link could (in peacetime) be rented out for use as a repair facility for civilian workboats operating in the district.

Plus, there's always the option of installing fighter (or bomber) bases elsewhere on the planet, if needs be.

Actually, this would be a concept that could be readily adapted for use over in Omega, as well as in Alpha. Although the exact numbers of mech-links involved would, of course, vary from one Omega empire to the next.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, October 10, 2026 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Gary, this question is from my lack of ability to look things up since the fire. Are there non-repair capable ground mech-links? Aren't they just planned patches of land near some shops? What I'm getting at is if they are actual tractor beams with mech-links.

Don't forget that ground bases can be placed on asteroids, limiting their number.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, October 10, 2026 - 08:15 pm: Edit

Alan, I think Gary hit upon why this idea may not work, and why no ship or base has PFs and heavy fighters: logistics.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, October 10, 2026 - 08:57 pm: Edit

Actually, after double-checking: small PF ground bases and planetary control bases have PF landing pads; which have the (repair-capable) mechanical linkages, but no tractor beams installed.

So to revise the suggestion in my last post, I would advise a would-be "planetary patrol base" to have a second set of PF landing pads.

I would still suggest swapping out some of the cargo boxes for more repair boxes, though.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, October 12, 2026 - 12:19 am: Edit

Gary, I was pretty sure the landing pads were without tractor beams. That's the relevant part. I would question whether the pads had actual linkages instead of just being repair capable spots to park a PF. I won't press for an official answer since it doesn't affect game play.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, October 12, 2026 - 11:31 am: Edit

It could matter for fiction, but there's no reason it needs to be completely standized, so even for fiction, you can pick the one you need for the story.

No breathable atmosphere (like a base on an asteroid), you probably have linkages for easier personel and light supply transfers, on a habitable planet, it probably depends on how much support and repair capacity is built into the linkages and what you need to do to quickly flush the engines. But even if one of the two options is clearly better, there's nothing forcing people to do things the right way .

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, October 12, 2026 - 12:20 pm: Edit

To quote from the 2012 Electronic Master Rulebook:

---

Quote:

(K2.26) LANDING PADS: Some ground bases, such as (R1.28J), are fitted with PF landing pads. These function as mech-links except that they do not operate as tractor beams and equire no energy. Each pad is destroyed by one “tractor” hit, and repaired at that cost. If a pad is destroyed, any PF on it is treated as per (K2.221).

---

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, October 12, 2026 - 12:33 pm: Edit

I would posit there are pads PFs & fighters/ bombers can land at AND repair capable pads with reloading stuff so they are equal to "repair capable" links.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, October 12, 2026 - 01:12 pm: Edit

As per (K2.25), a shuttle of any size can be held on a PF mech link, but it cannot be rearmed or repaired there.

Similarly, a Federation heavy fighter mech link (J1.561) can hold a shuttle bot not a PF; indeed, each such mech link can only hold the type of heavy fighter (F-111, or A-20, or F-101) it is pre-assigned to operate.

Which, over in the "dark future", means that the Federation would have to do more than simply bring Thunderbolt PFs into service starting in alt-Y198: they'd have to build or convert an entirely new array of ground- and space-based facilities in order to support their operations.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, October 12, 2026 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Don't forget that repair boxes also need power to preform repairs …

By Alan W Kerr (Awkerr) on Tuesday, October 13, 2026 - 02:41 pm: Edit

A couple of possible uses... but first a few questions (and does the answer CHANGE between SFB / F&E / F&E + expansions?). SVC mentioned "building the existing ones beside each other":

1) What rate can you build ground bases?
2) Can you have two bases being built at the same location AND at the same time?
3) What rules for co-located bases present problems for these ideas?

There are two situations that might make a single, "attrition unit heavy" base useful:
1) Enemy has overrun the area and destroyed all bases. You take back the area. You want new bases as quick as possible (tugs are busy building space-based bases).
2) You need more bases in a Partial Grid and want the best you can build with the limited resources of the Partial Grid.

Do these uses have any merit? ...or a modified version of this?

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, October 13, 2026 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Alan, there are numerous methods to add ground bases to planets per F&E 2010, each with their own limits.

(431.21) NON-SHIP UNITS: The player may (if at war), in addition to the ships on the production schedule, produce:
• any number of defense battalions [i.e., PDUs (508.31) or PGBs‡ (441.1)]

(433.421) The self-generation system allows an undevastated friendly planet which has at least one PDU (same empire) to build a new battalion each turn. This does not require a tug, but the planet must be within a Supply Grid capable of funding the new battalion, which costs five points [plus three points for fighters, see (432.23)]. No more than one battalion can be added to a planet during any one turn using this method. This is an exception to (508.32). If the planet is devastated during this process, the PDU is destroyed before it is completed.

(433.422) The upgrading system is used on any planet with a PDU of the same empire. This system can be used for a non-shipyard capital hex (e.g., of the Gorns or Romulans); doing so would require the services of a tug. If in the shipyard/capital hex, use (508.32), which is less expensive.
(433.4221) A tug [Mission K2 in (509.1)] must be sent to the
planet (by Operational or Strategic Movement); the tug can have no other mission during the turn. The new battalion is placed at the start of the next owning Player Turn.
(433.4222) The cost of seven points (plus three points for fighters) must be paid by the Supply Grid that includes the planet at the time the upgrade begins.
(433.4223) Each tug can add one battalion to the defenses of the planet per turn.
(433.4224) The PDU being deployed cannot be attacked before it is set up. If the planet is devastated during the deployment then the PDUs being added are also destroyed. If the deploying tug is destroyed or retreats during the deployment of the PDU then the PDU being added is also destroyed.

(433.423) A third method of upgrading planetary defenses is to deliver additional battalions by the method used to establish new defenses 508.32).


There's also:
(508.32) DEPLOYMENT: If deployed outside the capital hex, the defense battalion (PDU) must be moved (operationally or strategically) by a tug or other unit using Mission K1 (509.1), comprising its entire cargo. It is then set up as a mobile base [i.e., the tug must remain in that hex until the start of the next Operational Movement Phase (510.2)]. For Gorns and Romulans, their capital hex is the one with the shipyard and capital planet. If deployed in the capital/shipyard hex, no tug is required. If the tug is destroyed or forced to leave the hex, or if the planet is devastated
before the deployment is complete, the PDU is destroyed.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, October 14, 2026 - 12:08 pm: Edit

In SFB terms, if a planet is important enough to have one or more planetary control bases installed, it's likely that said base(s) is (or are) networked with other small bases on the same hex facing in a power grid (R1.28P)/(R10.31P).

For example: in the aforementioned Fall of Demorak campaign from Module C3A, all three GPCs to be found on the surface of the LDR capital world by Y195 were linked to such grids. As, indeed, were each of the three bomber bases installed on the planet; each of which had been placed in the hex facings not directly covered by a GPC.

Not all of the ground bases on a given hex facing listed under (T12S1.2) were connected to the same power grid, however.

-----

In any case, even if one were to wire up a would-be "planetary patrol base" to a local power grid, the question might be how often the base could be expected to repair more than a few PFs at once.

In a "peacetime" environment, there would be relatively few PFs landed on the base at any one time (some might be out on patrol routes, or carrying out other duties in the area), even if one were to open the base's repair services to the local "civilian" workboat market.

In wartime, if local combat has been heavy enough to lead to a large number of PFs scoring damage, it's likely that at least some of those boats have been destroyed - in essence, limiting the number of PFs that can be repaired, at least until replacements are to be made available.

So while being connected to a local small power station would certainly be helpful, there might yet be de facto limits on how much of a repair effort is being supported at any given point in time.