Fighter/PF proposal

[mike_espo]

I know there is some resistance to Fighters and Pseudo Fighters in FC. I agree with most of the arguments. They do add considerable time to the game, especially drone equiped fighters and the CV class ships.

However, I would suggest that the powers that be limit fighters and PFs to planetary defense. In other words no ship conveyence except for the Hydrans. Allow fighters in scenarios that involve base defense or planetary self-defense only. This would alleviate the need to produce carriers and PF tenders.

Allow only direct fire weapons for fighters/PFs. This should make them somewhat easier and faster to use.

[mjwest]

In the recent past, these topics have not been as volatile as in the more distant past, so I will let this conversation continue (unless told otherwise). I will shut it down without hesitation if things get unpleasant.

Some things to keep in mind:
1) This topic has been hashed up and down many times before. I understand there are new people who want their chance to voice an opinion, but know it can be hard to get a receptive audience considering the number of times it has come up before.

2) Each "side" of the argument has very vehement proponents. You are probably not going to change anyone's mind.

3) Fighters (outside Stingers) are pretty much relegated to Borders of Madness. Even if this were to change, it is quite unlikely to change until well after they are introduced in Borders of Madness.

4) Gunboats are a complete unknown as far as implementation. I don't think Steve is looking for any input on how to do it. When the time comes to do it, I am sure he will handle it on his own. It is also unknown if they will be BoM only, fully part of the base game, or some combination of both.

5) This is not an opportunity to create whole new fighters, ships, deployment paradigms, or rafts of new rules. Please keep desires, comments, and suggestions close to what is already in the SFU.

[mike_espo]

Yes. I read the previous threads. Just wanted to add that Fighters/PFs should be regulated to local defense only-except in the case of Hydrans as they do slow down play a lot.

[Savedfromwhat]

My only problem with fighters and gunboats is that they would never find a crew. As attrition units they die so quickly you would have to be demented to step into one. Half the mission reports I read explain that the carrier survived but lost all of her fighters. It doesn't make any sense to me for a sentient being to climb into something with a 50% or higher mortality rate. I thought maybe fighters were unmanned and the pilots were on the ships hence why the carrier was so important, but then i saw that there are unmanned fighter rules... As a Federation Commander I would have a real hard time sending pilots to their deaths on such a regular basis.

[mike_espo]

My only problem with fighters and gunboats is that they would never find a crew. As attrition units they die so quickly you would have to be demented to step into one. Half the mission reports I read explain that the carrier survived but lost all of her fighters. It doesn't make any sense to me for a sentient being to climb into something with a 50% or higher mortality rate. I thought maybe fighters were unmanned and the pilots were on the ships hence why the carrier was so important, but then i saw that there are unmanned fighter rules... As a Federation Commander I would have a real hard time sending pilots to their deaths on such a regular basis.

Wow. Never thought of that. I agree completely! However, if they were employed as I said: in local defense against raids and pirates, they probably would survive longer.

Never liked the idea of CVs. This is NOT Battlestar Galactica, or Modern Naval combat. I think CVs take away from the core of SFB/FC: a starship vs starship combat game.

[Rog]

Interesting idea it could bring fighters into the game without slowing it down too much. In Star fleet battles there are rules for unmanned fighters that could be used as an option here. Gun boats could be a problem but they have better survivability due to shields. I agree with the fact that CVs for all races would slow the game down too much.
Rules for ground defence bases (from Star fleet battles) could be added and the whole product called

[Wild Card]

My only problem with fighters and gunboats is that they would never find a crew. As attrition units they die so quickly you would have to be demented to step into one. Half the mission reports I read explain that the carrier survived but lost all of her fighters. It doesn't make any sense to me for a sentient being to climb into something with a 50% or higher mortality rate. I thought maybe fighters were unmanned and the pilots were on the ships hence why the carrier was so important, but then i saw that there are unmanned fighter rules... As a Federation Commander I would have a real hard time sending pilots to their deaths on such a regular basis.

One assumes that the fighters (at least) include protection for the pilot with the intent of them surviving destruction, PFs probably have a lifepod of some kind. But the cold hard fact of attrition units is that they project more power per life lost than ships of the line do. (People on ships don't just die when their ship blows up after all!).

[Ravenhull]

In universe, it's implied that PF crews are assigned there, rather than volunteers, which is why the Federation baulked at deploying them. Fighters, on the other hand, especially in the Federation, is a 'glamor' job and the Federation (and other powers) have no problem sending volunteers out like that.

In both cases, the unit does come with a survival pod which is usually ignored in game. The assumption is that whomever controls the battlefield in the end makes a sweep to recover the pods, or that ships slip in after the battle to grab as many as they can. It makes sense that they might send in a frigate into the area if there isn't an opposing ship right there and then and broadcast a signal telling the pods to signal their location right back, then using transporters and tractors to grab as many as they can before the other side reacts. There is even a few scenarios for doing just that.

But, in the end, the reason they exist in universe is because a squadron of fighters has the firepower of a cruiser at a fraction of the cost. A nation at war can simply accept the loss of 12 (+1 backseat guy in #12) men and fighters over 250+ men on a cruiser which is in itself expensive to produce. It's cold, but that's the downside of war.

Another factor is that PFs do get some volunteers from those who see this as an opportunity to prove themselves. A junior officer who is facing a dead-end for some reason (for example, a Klingon who is not considered politically reliable enough) might be able to prove their 'worth'... or die trying.

[Kang]

I myself feel that at the time period of our games, they will be using remote-controlled fighters as standard, with manned fighters being the exception. This is of course the other way round from how it is in SFB: there are remote controlled fighters but they are (or seem to be) less common than manned ones.

That said, in the game, manned fighters are better than remotes because of the immediacy of having a guy there in the situation. Actually I love that; that even in the 25th Century or whenever it's supposed to be, still there's no substitute for the human (or at least organic) brain..... That they are prepared to put people in those little craft and send them into an attrition battle speaks volumes for how effective they must be, and that the cost is outweighed by the benefit - otherwise they wouldn't do it, they'd find a better way.

[Steve Cole]

Correct. I said before that when/if we do gunboats, I'll do them without considering any input. After I do the playtest rules, only then will I consider comments, and even then, i won't consider counter-proposals.

[storeylf]

Never liked the idea of CVs. This is NOT Battlestar Galactica, or Modern Naval combat. I think CVs take away from the core of SFB/FC: a starship vs starship combat game.

Ditto, I coud handle Kzinti/hydran having carriers as their 'unique' aspect, but once the game seemed to end up as carrier combat in space I started going off the SFB. ON the one hand it bogs the game down and on the other I just can't get into star trek with carriers.

As for PFs, I just hope that they are nothing like what they are in SFB, the last thing I want is to do EA and fiddle around with fractional energy concerns mid-turn on something as small as PFs, in what is supposed to be a fast playing streamlined game. 6 or 7 ships is about the limit for doing EA and still having a reasonably fast game imo, I'd rather that was 6 or 7 large starships than 1 squadron of PFs.

[Dal Downing]

If you can make fighters ands gunboats work for planetary defence I see no reason why they would not work from carriers. All I can see is that this makes them easier because only on side has them.

[Blammo]

I'd love to have the rules for both fighters and PFs from all races. Would also like to have ships cards for the ships that fielded them. Get them all worked out and put them in Borders of Madness....and leave them there. That way, they can be used or not based totally of the agreement of the players, the moderator running the game or scenario calls for them. But, I'd pay ADB real money to have them available

Yes, fighters will slow it down. PF EA will slow things down. For that matter, everything over a duel with no seeking weapons slows the game down. But it will be just plan fun to have the option to fight out some insanely wild battles with massed fighters and PFs every once in a great while

[mike_espo]

I'd love to have the rules for both fighters and PFs from all races. Would also like to have ships cards for the ships that fielded them. Get them all worked out and put them in Borders of Madness....and leave them there. That way, they can be used or not based totally of the agreement of the players, the moderator running the game or scenario calls for them. But, I'd pay ADB real money to have them available

Yes, fighters will slow it down. PF EA will slow things down. For that matter, everything over a duel with no seeking weapons slows the game down. But it will be just plan fun to have the option to fight out some insanely wild battles with massed fighters and PFs every once in a great while

Sounds reasonable. Players should always have the options of using them. Carriers, PF tenders and Battle Groups do clutter the game though....

[Steve Cole]

Now, let me get this straight, you want to enter fighters and PFs in the 50 yard dash, the 1000 meter relay, and the marathon?