Topic: Poll for Mirror Mirror Fighters

[Hexx]

Hey all, since there seems to be some anti fighter sentiment (and PM's) going around thought I'd ask.
There will not be any PF's
While I don't promise to adhere to this poll, if it's overwhelmingly for or againt I'll go with the majority.
If it's close I'll go with whatever I feel like.

Thanks!

[Kroma BaSyl]

the poll need another option, like limited use of fighters. Maybe no CVDs just the original Taldren carriers or some such.

[Hexx]

You and complicating my polls

The poll doesn't needa nother option.
CVD's are in the server serving as the CVA's, so they're going to be rare.
(unless of course evryone votes for no fighters, then I'll make the CVD's as common as possible)

[762_XC]

There's nothing wrong with fighters. CVD's however are an abomination.

[Hexx]

There's nothing wrong with fighters. CVD's however are an abomination.

True, but I like them, and it's my server soooo...

As I said -CVD's will *likely* be in. CVA's will *likley* not be in
CVD's should have been BP ships on SGO. No blame towards Dizzy or DH- who knew?
I don't think we'll be seeing them used as much as they were on SGO anytime soon.

[762_XC]

We knew from SS2. They were a force back then, with TALDREN fighters.

[FPF-Wanderer]

Yes, I think fighters should be used.  I also think we should continue to use SFB fighters (although the use of the mega-packs proved to be a bit unbalancing).

Further, I would like to see fighters assigned to their proper carriers per SFB.  SG4 didn't go far enough, IMO.  For example, the F-A10 was used solely on the CVA (and bases, iirc).  Another is the F-15.  It was carried only on the CVB (it being used mostly from planets).

A-10 : CVA only
A-20 : SCS, NVH, CSV
F-111: BCS, NDS, NHV, CVH
F-14 : DVL, BCV
F-15 : CVB only
F-18 : On everything else

I also agree with Hexx on not using the PF's, I'd rather see F-111's and A-20's used instead.

Now, as to OOB, here is what I would like to see.  Instead of using BP's or CP's to build ships every so often, we limit the numbers of ships before the server even starts by using the historical models from SFB to determine how many of each ship will be "built" for each side.  For example, there were four CVD's built; I even know their names.  Or the BCG, three of which were built, along with three BCF's.  I already have the complete OOB at my disposal for all ships of NCL class and higher.

Ships will come out when they are supposed to according to their YFA date, and will be bought by those that sign up before hand for that class of ship.  Their availability could also be spread out by using historical models of how many of such-and-such ship were made per year.

So, over the course of the campaign, there will be a goodly amount of carriers and whatnot, but through attrition, the '"specialty ships" will fall, not to be replaced.  This will promote more "line ship" play, I hope, I think...

As to line ships, that's easy, as there were plenty of those.  For example, most if not all of the original CA's and CC's were converted to  CB's by the war's end...

Anyways, just thoughts I'm throwing out there...hey Hexx, I'd be happy to work with you on a Fed shiplist, I have one actually that I've been messing with for sometime just for a Mirror,Mirror campaign...

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Hey all, since there seems to be some anti fighter sentiment (and PM's) going around thought I'd ask.
There will not be any PF's
While I don't promise to adhere to this poll, if it's overwhelmingly for or againt I'll go with the majority.
If it's close I'll go with whatever I feel like.

Thanks!

The only good Mirror Universe episode (and it was very good) took place in the era before fighters.  Thus, we don't need 'em.  Besides, a good cruiser war would be fun.

-S'Cipio

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Another vote for no fighters. People want PvP? Leave the fighters and AI factor out and let's have at it in a more balanced fashion. Let's have a cruiser war as S'Cipio puts it. I'm lactose intolerant and have had enough of the fighter/ pf  proliferation. (I know, no PFs stated )

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Voted for no fighters, well except for admin shuttle set on attack......

The only exception I could think of would be if you took my area of operations idea for the carriers, linking them to the area immediately around the key planets, allowing them to be used there and nowhere else, as they would be an integral part of the particular systems defenses and not allowed to roam the map freely, and would also give a defender more weapons thus helping to prevent a one sided rout.

[FPF-Wanderer]

Voted for no fighters, well except for admin shuttle set on attack......

The only exception I could think of would be if you took my area of operations idea for the carriers, linking them to the area immediately around the key planets, allowing them to be used there and nowhere else, as they would be an integral part of the particular systems defenses and not allowed to roam the map freely, and would also give a defender more weapons thus helping to prevent a one sided rout.

That's an interesting idea, Chuut. On the other side of that is that Dn's and such were used on offensives as well, such as Operation Calvary or Operation Remus.  But I think the idea can be expanded on a bit.

Say there were "spheres of operation".  Certain ships would be assigned to a certain area of the front, and couldn't be released from that area unless a certain condition was met, or something like that.  Each "area" would  be, for example, 5-6 hexes wide along the front, based from the nearest planet or base.  One could also pull so many ships from other fronts for an offensive that the Admin would be told of in advance so many hours (and the Admin could roll the 1d6 to see if the other side gets intelligence pointing to a fleet buildup by the other side...).

[IAF Lyrkiller]

No ftrs, I am worned out on ftrs. and nearly killing Hexx would have made my day on SGO4

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Voted for no fighters, well except for admin shuttle set on attack......

The only exception I could think of would be if you took my area of operations idea for the carriers, linking them to the area immediately around the key planets, allowing them to be used there and nowhere else, as they would be an integral part of the particular systems defenses and not allowed to roam the map freely, and would also give a defender more weapons thus helping to prevent a one sided rout.

That's an interesting idea, Chuut. On the other side of that is that Dn's and such were used on offensives as well, such as Operation Calvary or Operation Remus.  But I think the idea can be expanded on a bit.

Say there were "spheres of operation".  Certain ships would be assigned to a certain area of the front, and couldn't be released from that area unless a certain condition was met, or something like that.  Each "area" would  be, for example, 5-6 hexes wide along the front, based from the nearest planet or base.  One could also pull so many ships from other fronts for an offensive that the Admin would be told of in advance so many hours (and the Admin could roll the 1d6 to see if the other side gets intelligence pointing to a fleet buildup by the other side...).

Well I did have generally the same idea when i posted this on the "Now that everybody loves OOB thread a few days back.....

3 Words...... Area of Operations.

In the future only allow BBs to only operate within 5 hexes of the homeworld, and restrict DNs to 1 per theatre.  For example in a classic setup that means 1 Klingon DN for the Hydran front, 1 for the Kzinti front, and 1 for the Federation front.  You might have situations where 2 DNs were present say the Klingon Kzinti  Front DN and the Lyran Kzinti Front DN, but it would likely reduce this occurance, as much less heavy iron would be on the board.

The idea about strategic redeployment of fronts is quite an interesting addition I must say 

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

bump

[Dfly]

It is strange having all these people here who have used SFB game and numbers and yet not a one of you have mentioned the simple fact that the super-fighters we used in SG04 actually took up 2 fighter boxes not 1.  Because of this, a ship which would carry 16 regular fighters would only be able to house 8 SUPER-FIGHTERS.  This would mean that the other 8 fighters we pilots were using should never have been available in the first place when using the super-fighters.  Perhaps the use of super-fighters can continue, but when using them, you are limited to only 1/2 of the total fighters your ships could carry.  Also,  I see it now mentioned that certain ships only(such as the Fed CVA ) was the only one to use the A10.  I agree with that idea totally.  If the ship was not designated to hold the A10, it should not have it.  If it was designated to hold the A10, lets at least put the right amount of A10 on it.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Actually, in SFB the Heavy Fighters (as they were called, not super) took up 2 spaces, therefore cutting the total number carried in half of the normal loadout. 

[Hexx]

And the megapack fighters *somehow* took up the same space as a normal fighter
(even though the description reads that it nearly doubled the fighters size)

It was megapack fighters used.
Don't think the superfighters made it i.

[Dfly]

Actually, in SFB the Heavy Fighters (as they were called, not super) took up 2 spaces, therefore cutting the total number carried in half of the normal loadout. 

I realise that, but just called them super because of an earlier posting calling them that.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

I thought mega packs were not the same as heavy fighters.

[FPF-DieHard]

I thought mega packs were not the same as heavy fighters.

They are not, the Megapacks are an improved WBPs

Believe it or not, the A10 is a single-space fighter.