Quick Starfleet Battles question....
- Thread starter jolau
- Start date
I honestly feel that it was a homage to modern fighters (but would have been nice if they could have slipped Migs or something like that in).
But then you have the scenario "Tomcats over Leebya" and errr......
I actually have no problem with the Feds naming their fighters like that though - there were already hundreds of class-names for the myriad of ships out there, and just going with the old AS/TAS, Stingers, F-14, Z-1, and Spiders, meant they could save cooler names for bigger fish coming out.
But then you have the scenario "Tomcats over Leebya" and errr......
I actually have no problem with the Feds naming their fighters like that though - there were already hundreds of class-names for the myriad of ships out there, and just going with the old AS/TAS, Stingers, F-14, Z-1, and Spiders, meant they could save cooler names for bigger fish coming out.
In the 1982 2nd revision rules where PFs were first introduced in Expansion #2 page 30...quotes...
"XXIV NEW SHIPS
( 156.0 ) PSEUDO FIGHTERS
The Lyrans developed the Pseudo-Fighter concept; first using them in action during Y178. Within a few years, several other races had adopted them. This expansion introduced four of these small craft, the Klingon G-1, the Hydran Harrier, the Kzinti Needle, and the Lyran Bobcat. Four additional Pseudo Fighters ( the Gorn Pterodactyl, Tholian Arachnid, Romulan Centurian, and Orion Buccaneer ) will be presented in a future expansion. As a service to the players, SSD sheets for these addition of P/F are presented in No.1 NEXUS Magazine. In order to make this expansion as up to date as possible, these four P/F's have been included in the charts and Scenarios of this Expansion.
As to the question of why not Fed PFs, since they were viewed not as huge fighters, but small ships. The short answer at the heart of your question is that the Feds felt that PFs were not worth the effort or cost in adopting into the fleet. Why build a anti-fighter platform intended for use against fighter heavy fleet if none existed? It was good against the Kzintis and Hydrans....but what use would the Feds need using PFs, if the Klingons or other races were not as heavily carrier based in their offensive strike groups instead like the Feds? The Kzinti's were mostly a carrier fleet, so it would make sense that the Lyrans and the Klingons woulds adopt PFs as a counter to lots of fighters. Yeah...PFs had some limited warp capability and were good in short range strike roles unless accompanied by a tender. But Fed battlegroups with larger ships would leave PFs in the dust with their limited range warp packs. The key here is that the Feds were interested in PROJECTING their Heavy Fleet power by means of battlegroups in the General War to strongly defeating the Klingon's at their homeworld. But PFs by themselves coudn't keep pace with the rest of a battlegroup over a long distance if they got separated from the tender. Strategically in a long distance campaign without the tender, PFs are worthless. Thats it. There's your answer. In a localized action PFs would be great TACTICALLY. But STRATEGICALLY in a long range offensive campaign they are of little value in light of everything mentioned here. A PF group is great though in a local defensive action or a short range strike action, but unless carried by a tender they just acted like a ball and chain to large long range battlegroups with long legs. Don't get me wrong....a group of 6 PFs is great at ripping a heavy cruiser to shreads. In that role for the PF as a mass fighet counter..... the Feds had no substantial threat from enemy fighters employed enmass like the Feds were fielding in their fleet carriers at the heart of ther battlegroups during the war. Also consider that he Lyrans first fielded PFs in Y178 and the Klingons adopted them later. Another possability to consider is that by the time the Federation encountered them timewise in the war, it may have been decided that it was too late to incorporate PFs for Fed use to be of any practical value to be an additional benefit in the war effort. A PF flotilla is a good defensive counter to large numbers of fighters.... in a nutshell. As well the Feds didn't want to waste the cost on building tenders which were needed to for the PFs if built which would have detracted from building other more desired bigger ships, and robbed the fleet of cruiser hulls that PF tenders demanded. Here is another thing to consider...in that building a flotilla of PFs necessitated in building a tnder to service them. One flotilla plus one tender equals the expenditure of two combat ships. But either without the other is pretty useless without the other. The PFs can't get far wit htheir warp packs needing to be resupplied after an encounter, and the tender is not really of any combat value on it's own without the PFs. If they get separated it is a double loss on the expenditure of 2 ships in value. Better to just build 2 heavy cruisers and simplify things greatly. The Feds basically liked to concentrate power into bigger more powerful ships to project firepower easier, and PFs were deemed not up to snuff in fleet ops and too annoyingly tedious to bother with since large ships is where the Feds were more interested in in fleet management. And diverting larger cruiser hulls to service smaller units seemed pointless and self-defeating to Fed fleet management. ( Or so the thinking goes as explained to me long ago...) This is important since ships have assigned crews and fighter pilots are assigned to ships. And this made logistically assigning crews more tedious to combat units that were not expected to survive past the short term. The Fed's force structure placed the lion's share of their personnel into larger ships, avoiding whenever possible in placing personnel into smaller combat units. Idea being better crew survivability in larger combat units than in much easier to kill fighters. I seem to recall that early on....Feds viewed fighters as a necessary evil, and later in the war came to look on them as a valued asset of the carriers during the General War. In essence as mentioned in comments by others earlier in thsi thread...atttrition units left a poor taste in the Feds's mouths.
This designation and class from Psuedo - Fighter was changed when the Captain's Rules were released in 1990 and the class became "Patrol Ship" with a conjectural PF for the Fed's in the same idea as a WWII PT boat. The SSDs can be found in page 10 thru 12 of the conjectural Fed units of Module K of the Captain's Rules post 1990 era rules. ( Rev 4...) But in the official game universe this if I remember right the Fed's not officially having PF's created a gap that was intentionally addressed and deliberately filled by role overlap of FFs and escorts, and the smaller heavy fighters on modified carrier ships like the BCV and CVS which seemed to strongly come more to the forefront after the release of the "Captain's Edition" after 1990 since this was appearently hammered out by playtestors in the "Commander's Edition" from 1984 to 1990. My guess is that I seem to remember some gripes about the potential for everyone having Pseudo-Fighters, and that it potentially made the game vanilla bland and that was the reason with officallly not letting the Feds have them as well. But in denying the Fed's a PF caused a role gap in the Fed small ship ranks and pushed more of the projected offensive role to the fighters and carrier escorts to meet the threat of enemy PFs. I personally do think the Feds should have them as well if the other economically and techically inferior races had them earlier. I seem to recall on this point when the captain's edition rules were rolled out that it was felt that TPTB at Task Force Games that the Feds decided that PFs were not deemed necessary since there was a significant role overlap between the heavy fighters and small ships to counter enemy PFs thus deeming them unnesseary to build for Federation needs. This was the stategic thinking on this if I remember right. Idea that heavy fighters in large groups or squadron could counter enemy PFs in small numbers. Other than that...it would be smart to avoid large PF groups whenever possible if not assigned to a task force. Anything above that would require either a small force with a scout for ECM or a carrier group whehter big like a MacArthur / Zhukov or small like a CVS or BCV or NCV. I never bothered to experiment much with this class, since my focus was more on fighting with bigger ships in battlegroups like seen in TOS Trek ( "The Ultimate Computer"...) which is why I wanted to play the game origionally. I also agree with the comments earlier in the thread about attrition units which plays into what was mentioend in this post. They simply cost too much in BPV in the expenditure. It's a waste of points for so little bang for the buck so to speak. But the Feds being technologically superior in the game you would think would have had them first. I am rusty on this aspect and think it was pointless in the game designer's reasoning to not let the Feds have something that everyone else had that they didn't, and it being not better or at least equal than what everyone else was fielding in that size class. Or so I remeber thinking about the furor about this after they rolled out the modules of the "Captain's Edition" changes from the "Commander's Edition" ( 1984 ) in the early 1990s. In all of this it mainly boils down to the Feds were more interested in durable ships for their economic expenditure, and viewed the PF as a waste of rescources since these things droped like flies despite being cheap to crank out in sheer obscene numbers.
As for fighter designations being named after 20th century U.S. Fighters.....my guess is due to Cole and Petrick were cutting these units out of whole cloth and needed something designating them for their roles, since the fighters of all the other races were pretty much inderstood as to what their role assignments were tactically in contrast to each other. Thus a F-14 was a heavy fighter, a F-18 was a medium fighter, and a F-111 was a heavy multi-role fighter shuttle. The name I think helped to convey the role assignment to the unit if the players were familliar with the role specifics of the U.S. fighters. Apart from the administrative shuttle, I personaly wished that they had a heavy shuttle other than the SWAC or Scatterpack, or the suicide shuttle that had heavier armament then the phaser III on the Admin. Shuttle. The other races fighters were pretty straight forward to understand and didn't need such 20th century equivilents to communicate their roles unlike the Fed fighters which were more tricky in conveying their roles since if I remember they came later in the game when fighters were introduced after the Hydran ships in Expansion #2 in the summer of 1982 when STII came out when everyone was raving aobut X-class technology from the ST movies.
I could dig out my stuff if anyone needs references. I pretty much have everything from 1977 - 1996 that was released for Star Fleet Battles. I claim to be no expert and am rusty. But I do remember the various things the gamers were abuzz between the release between each of the game revisions.
EDIT: I dug out my stuff and ran through the material, and am surprised how much I have forgotten about this stuff. In the process of typing this post my response changed as reviuewed the material. I origionally tohught the Feds had them, and lost them when the Captian's Edition came out. In reviewing the material it was the opposite...in thathtey never had them and only when the Captain's Edition Module K came out tthat the Feds were given a "conjectural" PF to look at. I reviewed my Nexus collectrion and I am missing Nexus Vol.1...so I don't have the SSDs for the other races PFs from Expansion #2 from 1982 to comare against.
I personally didn't care for the Fed PF's and used them little. But I always felt that they should be there if anyone wanted to use them. That was one revision between the Commander's Editions and the Captian's Edition that I remember rubbed people the wrong way in that the Feds never got in the new edition the much hoped for PFs. As a Fed player I didn't like the other races having stuff that I didn't have. But if I didn't use it, then it didn't bug me too much. To me the fuss was pointless since my focus was in larger fleet units.
As for Fed fighters and carriers...I loved them. In carrier groups they were awesome in the power they projected from the carrier. But book-keeping them was a mental nightmare for every fighter's movement and target and updating each individually every impulse.
Personally my favorite SFB ship was the Fed BCG. Dreadnought firepower on a Cruiser hull. I love that G-Rack with the extra firepower bypassing the breakdown roll. This ship really addressed the shortcomings of the CAR+. Don't get me wrong...I loved the TOS hull. But having more firepower for the size class is a desired bonus!
Initially...as a Trek purist I had a problem with drones in the game. But in learnign the game I quickly learned that they gave redress to the tactical imbalances the Fed ships had defensively. The drones in the Fed G-racks and short range defensive phaser IIIs became more of value in meeting an oppoent's 2 pronged attack simultaniously. The game may not be totally pure beyond the SSDs based off the Franz Joseph plans, but it did balance out rather nicely like giving the plasma torpedos tracking ability unlike the plasmas of the Lou Zocchi's 1977 "Star Fleet Battle Manual" where they did not track and made the Romulans much easier to beat.
For what it's worth. Sorry for the lengthy reply.
Last edited:
Hey don't apologise, it was a good reply! 
Actually, to be honest that's all you need. "The Federation never built them because Starfleet Command decided not to."
Not every fleet needs to field the same units, I quite enjoy that the Feds became a primary fighter-user, second only to the Hydrans, with some races such as the Gorns and the Lyrans using them as an afterthought (loved the story of the Lyran Carrier Captain being sacked cos he launched his fighter group through his own active ESGs!).
Actually, to be honest that's all you need. "The Federation never built them because Starfleet Command decided not to."
Not every fleet needs to field the same units, I quite enjoy that the Feds became a primary fighter-user, second only to the Hydrans, with some races such as the Gorns and the Lyrans using them as an afterthought (loved the story of the Lyran Carrier Captain being sacked cos he launched his fighter group through his own active ESGs!).
I would say about the same size as a 737. It has all the bare accoutriments of a ship like quarters, bathrooms, bridge and a small engineering...but way cramped like what you would see ina u-boat like U-96 in DAS BOOT. When I was first introduced to the topic, I also tried to make the connection to a u-boat as a visual equivalent for reference...but was corrected by those who I was playtesting with back in the early 1980s. ( Rich Peterson and Paul Anders in some of the material for Captain's Log #6...the Black Hole Free For All scenario if I remember..) They insisted that they should be viewed more like PT-109 as a local / coastal / regional short range patrol boat which is different from a long distance ocean going u-boat. And to boot a PT boat is not as large as a u-boat.
Between the size of PT-109 and a Boeing 737.
Between the size of PT-109 and a Boeing 737.
Well, the Klingon G1 gunboat is about 32m long, going by the deck plans in the Klingon book for Prime Directive.
Most of the Alpha Octant gunboats are similar-ish in size - as is the Baduvai PF, built out in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud. However, Omega PFs, such as the Mæsron and Koligahr ones shown here, and detailed in the recently-released Module Omega 5, vary widely in size, and in deployment levels (unlike the standard 6 per flotilla in Alpha or the Cloud, Omega deployments varied from 8 to a flotilla in Drex fleets, to as low as 4 per flotilla among the Iridani and others - but the relative sizes and capabilities of each type of gunboat were reflected by these differences in deployment.)
I can't recall what the conjectural Fed PF looks like, but the conjectural FRA PF looks like a miniature 'Terran'-style CL (yes, that's right - the Aurorans forewent gunboats too, even though they were the ones to initiate development of the technology... but at least they were kind enough to sell the tech to the Mæsrons!)
Most of the Alpha Octant gunboats are similar-ish in size - as is the Baduvai PF, built out in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud. However, Omega PFs, such as the Mæsron and Koligahr ones shown here, and detailed in the recently-released Module Omega 5, vary widely in size, and in deployment levels (unlike the standard 6 per flotilla in Alpha or the Cloud, Omega deployments varied from 8 to a flotilla in Drex fleets, to as low as 4 per flotilla among the Iridani and others - but the relative sizes and capabilities of each type of gunboat were reflected by these differences in deployment.)
I can't recall what the conjectural Fed PF looks like, but the conjectural FRA PF looks like a miniature 'Terran'-style CL (yes, that's right - the Aurorans forewent gunboats too, even though they were the ones to initiate development of the technology... but at least they were kind enough to sell the tech to the Mæsrons!)
Last edited:
Klingon G1: 32m
Danube Class Runabout: 23.1m
Maquis/Federation Fighter: 25m
Maquis Raider: 60m
Hideki Class: 85.78m
Defiant Class: 120m
Boeing 737: 28.6m - 42.1m (Shortest: 737-100 Longest: 737-900)
Boeing 757-200: 42.3m
Space Shuttle: 37.24m
B-52 Bomber: 48.5m
Thought I would add that.
Danube Class Runabout: 23.1m
Maquis/Federation Fighter: 25m
Maquis Raider: 60m
Hideki Class: 85.78m
Defiant Class: 120m
Boeing 737: 28.6m - 42.1m (Shortest: 737-100 Longest: 737-900)
Boeing 757-200: 42.3m
Space Shuttle: 37.24m
B-52 Bomber: 48.5m
Thought I would add that.
jolau,
Thank you for doing the homework and providing this. This list nails it all down to closer to specific size of the pf's. Interesting some of the other things on the list like the space shuttle to draw comparisons with. I was ballparking off the top in my head in my last reply. I'm a little suprised that I was THAT close in my estimate.
Thank you for doing the homework and providing this. This list nails it all down to closer to specific size of the pf's. Interesting some of the other things on the list like the space shuttle to draw comparisons with. I was ballparking off the top in my head in my last reply. I'm a little suprised that I was THAT close in my estimate.
Last edited:
Answers to various questions:
The feds did not build PF's(gunboats, as they as currently known) due to moral objections.
Fighters were ok, because all fighter pilots were volunteers. Being a fighter jockey was considered a thrilling and glamorous job within Star Fleet, and they had no end of glory-seekers vying for the position. Additionally, piloting a fighter was considered a noble and heroic thing to do, just adding to the prestige of the position.
In answer to the question, "why not have PF crews be volunteers?", being a member of a gunboat crew was not glamorous. It was a miserable and terrifying job, with a low survival rate. Fighters required one or two people to operate. Gunboats required 20-30 souls. They were more effective attrition units than fighters, in terms of cost versus effect, but no one wanted to be on one. Meaning crews had to be assigned to them. Star Fleet could not morally justify sentencing so many capable people to death, so they did not operate gunboats.
Another reason the Feds preferred fighters is that, eventually, remote control systems were developed for fighters. This means that pilots did not even have to directly put themselves at risk. They simply piloted fighters safely from a console aboard the carrier(this system did have drawbacks though, such as limited range and the pilot's performance being hindered due to the fact that he was "not really there")
Also, it should be noted that since the Feds stuck with fighters long after the other empires had dedicated themselves to gunboats, they developed far and away the best fighters in space, with nearly the capabilities of a gunboat(although at great cost in research and development).
Also, in answer to the question of "why did the feds name their fighters after 20th century fighters?", it was because the 20th century was the last great era of fighters on Earth before that, and it was intended as an homage. After Star Fleet was formed, space fighters were not practical. Ship weapons were not miniaturized enough and efficient warp drives could not be developed for shuttles. Sublight fighters would be sitting ducks and so were never created. Shortly before the General War, the Hydrans and Kzintis made breakthroughs in these fields, and the Feds followed suit.
So yeah, the Feds stuck with fighters and ignored gunboats because making gunboats would have required basically slaughtering tens of thousands of their own people. I have heard people criticize the SFU for being too much about war, as opposed to Gene's peaceful views, but I think this is one area where they've honored the idealistic nature of the UFP and translated it into an interesting game mechanic.
The feds did not build PF's(gunboats, as they as currently known) due to moral objections.
Fighters were ok, because all fighter pilots were volunteers. Being a fighter jockey was considered a thrilling and glamorous job within Star Fleet, and they had no end of glory-seekers vying for the position. Additionally, piloting a fighter was considered a noble and heroic thing to do, just adding to the prestige of the position.
In answer to the question, "why not have PF crews be volunteers?", being a member of a gunboat crew was not glamorous. It was a miserable and terrifying job, with a low survival rate. Fighters required one or two people to operate. Gunboats required 20-30 souls. They were more effective attrition units than fighters, in terms of cost versus effect, but no one wanted to be on one. Meaning crews had to be assigned to them. Star Fleet could not morally justify sentencing so many capable people to death, so they did not operate gunboats.
Another reason the Feds preferred fighters is that, eventually, remote control systems were developed for fighters. This means that pilots did not even have to directly put themselves at risk. They simply piloted fighters safely from a console aboard the carrier(this system did have drawbacks though, such as limited range and the pilot's performance being hindered due to the fact that he was "not really there")
Also, it should be noted that since the Feds stuck with fighters long after the other empires had dedicated themselves to gunboats, they developed far and away the best fighters in space, with nearly the capabilities of a gunboat(although at great cost in research and development).
Also, in answer to the question of "why did the feds name their fighters after 20th century fighters?", it was because the 20th century was the last great era of fighters on Earth before that, and it was intended as an homage. After Star Fleet was formed, space fighters were not practical. Ship weapons were not miniaturized enough and efficient warp drives could not be developed for shuttles. Sublight fighters would be sitting ducks and so were never created. Shortly before the General War, the Hydrans and Kzintis made breakthroughs in these fields, and the Feds followed suit.
So yeah, the Feds stuck with fighters and ignored gunboats because making gunboats would have required basically slaughtering tens of thousands of their own people. I have heard people criticize the SFU for being too much about war, as opposed to Gene's peaceful views, but I think this is one area where they've honored the idealistic nature of the UFP and translated it into an interesting game mechanic.
Similar threads
