Federation Commander

To continue with the Omega comparison for a bit longer, the Mæsrons break their 14-strong squadrons into 8 fighters with phasers, 4 with tachyon guns and only 2 with TMs; while the eleven-strong Trobrin squadrons have 7 phaser, 2 bolt and 2 torpedo craft included.

(Probr carriers can't even take their torpedo fighters, and ground bases no more than four out of a squadron of twelve.)

It may be easier to simply side-step seeking fighters here, but 2-4 out of a squadron of 12 might not be so bad...

Here are a few personal observations on what has been posted.

1)One direct fire fighters only: Soz but i really do like the idear of 2 fighter types per race which means in most cases one of them been a drone fighter; bombers I take it at this point aren’t an issue. It give people a far greater choice in tactics and style of play, I realise this opens up the thorny problem of drone/plasma fighters, but I believe there must be some way of dealing with this problem with a ‘direct fire’ mechanisms, which in my eyes would be a must to cut down clutter and speed things up. To be honest I do quite like the basic concept of the present fighter DF missile rule but having said that have only used them once, and know from previous threads that there are a lot people who have a lot of issues with them. The thing is to keep it fast and simple and hopefully eloquent, no Dog fight drone etc., I know the bloody holly grail.

2) Flights/stacks: As I’ve said before I really do like this idea, but any rules that are in BOM need to fit in with the core rules and I really don’t want to see a conflict with Stingers, and I can’t see Steve going for a retro fit on the Stinger rules. Having said that I think Monty may be on to something with the general idea that if you fly in Flights you are award with some type of advantage, this would encourage people to operate in this manner. Not sure how this would work but, one thought would be to use duxvolantis idea of pooled point defence, saying it could be only used if fighters are in the same hex, but I think more advantages would be need to make people fly in Flights.

3) Dog fighting NO, it’s a great visual concept on paper but in any form close to the original rules it is far too time consuming, and to be honest is it really need?

Eddit due to cut and paste mess up

for the drone races "IF" you go w/o drones but want 2 different fighter designs per fleet. give them 1 with Ph/Disr and 1 with just Phasers. As for the Plasma gang give them a plasma D bolter and a Plasma F bolter or a Plasma D bolter and a Plasma K bolter and introduce the Plasma K to the game (which if i remember correctly still has not been introduced).

Mjwest: would it be possible when time permits to get a Romulan & a Kzinti carrier and fighters to test out some of what is being kicked around in this thread. Along with some alternate fighters for the Klingons and Feds.

I can defiantly see the advantages of this compromise, gives choice but get rid of the guide missile issue. There is one thing that spings to mind straight away, but it would probably not take a great deal ot address, is that mjwest has expressed in a previous thread great concern in allowing PL-F fighters to bolt their torp.

Edit: apologies to mj, just re reread the old thread about PL-F fighters and I have realised that what I’ve credited you with say, in this post, is wrong and I believe in fact you were not happy with applying the current play test DF missile rules to F’s. Note to self re read old posts before submitting

The direct-fire idea has been mentioned many times. It has one big flaw: it isn't how the other games work. For someone who wants to use FC as a streamed SFB, it's a non-workable solution, a dead horse on arrival. For someone who never heard of SFB, it's just another rule to learn, more tactics to learn.

It's not impossible that we might do multiple systems, and let each player/group use whatever they want. The SFB players could have their oceans of drones, the FC-only players could have their "everybody has a stinger", and anybody could use them in stacks or singles as they want.

Does it really amtter that that's not how the other games do it, if that many drones make the game almost unplayable because you have all that record keeping then it is still unplayable whether it works like that in the other games or not.

Steve:

Just have options of fighters. On the playtest CVS there are three fighters, two with drones, one with a PHOT. If we don't want drone fighters, we limit the fighters to the A10 only.

However, why not have optional rules, one aimed more at FC, where too many drones is a bad thing, and SFBers, who might want all the types of fighters?

I know there is a general "no options" rule in Fed Com. However, this who project is one big option itself, and I think you are running close to alienating your audience for the book.

I mean, it is aimed at SFBers who want to play out battles in FC.That is a limited part of their audience. I would also say it should be aimed at those in FC who want a little more variety in tactics, without taking it to the SFB level of play. Again, only a part of all the players.

But without being able to have options to better tailor the game to each of those groups, it makes the game less appealing to half the books' audience.

Following the direct fire-only chain of thought, the phaser-fighter is an interesting concept especially if all heavy weapons were restricted from targeting fighters and shuttles. It would split fighters into two distinct roles and give them more of a chance to get up close and personal with a capital ship. Along with a grouping bonus the existing fighter BPV may be too low for these extra benefits.

Monty wrote:Following the direct fire-only chain of thought, the phaser-fighter is an interesting concept especially if all heavy weapons were restricted from targeting fighters and shuttles.

This is likely a non-starter. If heavy weapons can target drones, I fail to see why they can't target fighters. Please don't make this an assumption for any suggestions.

jeffery smith wrote:Mjwest: would it be possible when time permits to get a Romulan & a Kzinti carrier and fighters to test out some of what is being kicked around in this thread. Along with some alternate fighters for the Klingons and Feds.

Kziniti CVS was in Communique #39... http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... que-39.pdf

MJW you may want to move that from the Kziniti Folder to the Playtest Material Folder. Now a SpH-B or the Archeaopteryx in a future Communique might be nice. And maybe a Escort or 2

As was stated already I really think the ship has sailed on the whole 'flight' concept back in Playtesting for Distant Kingdoms. Not to say SVC might not make a BoM Flight Rule. But, instead of reinvinting the wheel why not ask for Heavy Fighters (Double Sized Fighters rougly equal to 2 Fighters) or Bombers (Triple Sized Fighters roughly equaled to 3 fighters). Fair enough in that other game you can't fly Bombers off of Carriers, but if you are just going to kit bash Flights or Wings why not use whats already in the SFU? I will have to dig out my Rulebook to see how ADD in Offensive Mode would work aginst Heavy Fighters and Bombers.

Also if poeple want to explore a "Flight" concept you may want to limit your Flights to just 2 fighters because Just about all Carriers carry even numbers of Fighters (Escort/Light Carriers - 6, 8, or 9 Fighters, Mobile Carriers - 10 Fighters, Strike Carriers - 12 Fighters, Heavy Carriers - 24 Fighters) And coincendently it would match Fighter Factors from F&E.

mjwest wrote:

Monty wrote:Following the direct fire-only chain of thought, the phaser-fighter is an interesting concept especially if all heavy weapons were restricted from targeting fighters and shuttles.

This is likely a non-starter. If heavy weapons can target drones, I fail to see why they can't target fighters. Please don't make this an assumption for any suggestions.

Gotcha. I'll be more thoughtful about fully qualifying future suggestions.

You are right, if heavy's can't fire on fighters and shuttles they sure shouldn't be able to fire on drones. It would be taking SFB rule (E1.7) small target modifier and (FD1.52) heavy weapons firing on drones a step further.

Savedfromwhat: to me since this is BoM , no it does not matter if they work the same as SFB. to Svc that is an issue. BoM as we all know is suppost to bring over to FC things that were deemed to "messy" for FC at the time. basicly Svc wanted to be able to give SFB veterans a way to "whole sale plug in" various things from SFB. Having played SFB for 20+ years (and still have not learned let alone mastered everything in it) i can understand where he is coming from. as an FC player for about the last 2 years i believe that may not work for everything (sorry Svc). I believe that if we limit the # of fighters per carrier and use direct fire only fighter rules for FC that carriers will work for this game. As for fighter flights. Lots of different game engines use them (and huge numbers of them per ship). will it work for FC,sure why not but is it needed. I do not believe so (Thats my belief).

Dal: i forgot about the Kzinti CVS in comm #39. thanks for the reminder.

Jeffery: I understand it is a problem for SVC, but I don't understand the schizophrenia of the games design choice. Some rules are chosen because they "work that way in SFB", while other rules are changed because "thats how they work in SFB not in FC". I don't understand why this is and it seems like it is a little inconsistent at times. It's obvious that everything from SFB isn't going to make it into FC and I am fine with that, but if SFB players are already making concessions to SFB by using FC in the first place (even though it is BoM) then why go against your "simpler" philosophy just to add a level of complexity that SFBers using FedCom would be looking to get away from anyway.

Using the rational that someone will want to use their specific drone armed fighter then maybe SFBers will want their favorite drone to go with their favorite drone armed fighter; are you going to add the drones into the game because "someone" might want the option to use one? No, SVC has already stated that.

I know SVC isn;'t perfect and just like the rest of us he deserves the benefit of the doubt and dangit he has the prerogative to change his mind however, I do believe that this is an inconsistency in design choices. Now where are my x-ships