Played at lunch yesterday against NAC and really felt my BDN was extremely
inaffective.
My side:
FSE BDN FSE CH FSE DS (Super Destroyer).
Opponents
NAC CVL 2xNAC Escort Cruiser (CE?)
The CVL sat back out of the combat most of the game, leaving me the 2 CE's to
fight. I managed to put all SML's on target every time, but 2 interceptors and
ADFC on the CE's made this pointless. As far as affectiveness went I felt the
CH was much more affective than the BDN as it had 2 SML launchers, 2 on the
BDN and I could probably have saturated defenses and landed a few missles. My
opponent apparently agreed as he targetted my CH with all his fighters.
(I was running interceptors, they took out one group of his fighters dieing in
the process.)
Oh, for those that don't want fighters but think you need them to
deal with fighters, notice that 1 fighter group == _9_ PDS as far
as space is concerned, and PDS don't die in dogfights.
Hullo all
> Played at lunch yesterday against NAC and really felt my BDN
I agree. I don't think the group I play with has quite figured out the FSE in
general and the BDN just does not cut it anyway we've sliced it so far.
The BDN seems to be the ultimate 'compromise' ship. It lacks sufficient
launchers to be an effective SML ship. It lacks sufficient beam weapons ( 1
class 3 on a BDN?!?) to slug it out and one fighter sqdn is not much of a
threat. Its fast, but I can't figure out where to manouver it to. Again it
seems that the FSE ship excels at running away :-)=
> My side:
Two ADFC equiped ships does make it very tough to punch a hole through. Try
the scenario again with only on ADFC equiped ship and see how it goes.
> The CVL sat back out of the combat most of the game, leaving me
The FSE CH is a very impressive ship. My personal fav of the FSE fleet.
> Hullo all
Again it
> seems that the FSE ship excels at running away :-)=
Well, we never claimed the ships in the FB were all optimised - in fact
just the opposite, many will be general-purpose designs, some may even
be better for political missions than combat ones.... part of the fun will be
finding out which work well and which don't in a given situation. Maybe the
Bonaparte design got built because the Naval Architect's third cousin's
mistress had something nasty on the War Minister.... :-)
Jon (GZG)
> My side:
Try
> the scenario again with only on ADFC equiped ship and see how it goes.
Well, after playing around with designs and giving myself some constraints
(speed is important, must have fighters because the mini has a hanger bay) I
came up with this.
Design Summary (AO) Displacement 160
Point Cost 539
Ship Type Military
Hull Strength Average
Thrust 5
FTL Capable
SML (2)
SM Magazine Cap: 8 (4 / 2 ER salvos)
Beam / 1 FP F FS AP A AS
Beam / 1 FP F FS AP A AS
Beam / 3 FP F FS
Beam / 3 F FS
Beam / 3 FP F
Screen Level 1
PDS (4) FC (3)
Fighter Bay
Replace 2 of the 2's with 3's, drop the third. Rip out a few inertial
compensators (drop the drives to a 5) and replace with an extra SML launcher.
I think it would be even more affective if the fighter bay were removed, an
adfc and a extra pds added and 4 more space devoted to
sm magazine and the FS/FP 3's given AS/AP, but this would lose a
bit of the flavor of a BDN and not match the miniature anyway.
Now, I've done 1 FB battle and 4 FT battles so the original FSE BDN could be
fine if used with proper tactics. Also, this ship could have a glaring
weakness that I am too clueless to see.
I have to say I like the design rules in FB MUCH better, the tendancy to do
everything in all arc weapons has basicly gone away, it costs too much space.
This is the first time I ever looked closely at the design; at first blush, I
understand not seeing it's true value. It's sacrifice of almost everything
else to speed, and therefore highly unpredictable maneuvers, shows in its
thrust 6! This makes it perfect foil to those fleets which require the ability
to know where a target is going to be to hit. Obviously, an
SML-laden fleet.
After full analysis, I must assume it was originally designed by the FSE
military police to use against any future mutinies in the FSE ranks.
It must quell any rebellion by it's size. Don't think it's going to have much
luck with it's loadout...
Seriously, I don't recall hearing Hobie whinging about this one, and I know
*I'D* be doing so if it's as relatively weak as I'm thinking. Have to admit,
though, the idea of a BDN doing a 180... *whew*
Remember, I fly ESU and, bricks in space, NSL!
The_Beast
> On 9-Jul-99 at 15:30, devans@uneb.edu (devans@uneb.edu) wrote:
Ah, maybe I should paint it with InSec colors.:)
Regarding the FSE in general:
I've found the FSE to be the least effective fleet in single battles. Yet I
suspect they'd be very good in a campaign.
The reason is that an FSE fleet comes in, shoots off its SMLs (doing at least
SOME damage to the enemy, even if only taking out a slew of Banzai Jamming
Frigates) then.... what?
In a normal out-of-strategic-context battle, it must then fight against
a slightly reduced enemy fleet, with a drastic inferiority in beam weapons.
The usual outcome is a loss for the FSE.
In a strategic context, the FSE just departs the area, and comes back again,
and again, and again until the opposition has run out of
Frigates, and the 7+ SMLs start hitting BCs instead of FFs. In which
case the FSE starts winning.
As regards effectiveness of SMLs, I normally get an 80%+ yield, ie about
80% of the SMLs actually launched end up targetting SOMETHING. Usually
though it's one of the 3-4 FFs that are around each enemy vessel they
care about. The occasional CA or CL goes west, but not often. I do slightly
better against NSL, but only slightly.
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
the least effective fleet in single battles.
> Yet I suspect they'd be very good in a campaign.
Strangely enough, the reasons you state for your approval are the very reasons
the I feel the FSE would lose in a campaign.
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
Inasmuch as it's well-nigh impossible for them to fight an even battle
and _hold the ground_ ? Yes. Ish. Depends too much on what's been fought
over. Given that a Fleet Action is merely the prelude to a large-scakle
ground assault, one that could take weeks or months to conclude, then
"holding the ground" isn't that important _IF_ you can continuously
stage raids on the invasion fleet. Of course if the shipyards and SML
factories are the things being guarded, and there's a threat of Ortillery
bombardment, then that's a different matter.
G'day Alan,
> I've found the FSE to be the least effective fleet in single battles.
They can be pushing it up hill at times, but don't you just love a challenge
like that?;)
> Yet I suspect they'd be very good in a campaign.
Actually their reliance on SMs and fighters make campaigns expensive for them
though they do excel at the hit and run;)
> The reason is that an FSE fleet comes in,
The lack of "forever" (beam) weaponary means the FSE can get itself into
trouble fast if it doesn't use its fighters/SMs very well. Its not as
easy to just walk in and not think and win with the FSE, but if you've got
your wits about you you can pull off victory. I've learnt that you have to
coordinate attacks so you've got a stack of SMs going in not the odd one or
two, and if you can tie up the PDS with a simultaneous fighter attack all the
better. I always concentrate on the biggest guy first (though I admit I had to
blow up an awful lot of FFs before I got my eye in), because once they're gone
you're beams are usually capable of polishing off the small stuff. You've also
got to use that thrust of yours (they call it "Doing the Beth" down here) to
keep in the opposition's blind spots and away from their SMs etc. It is a
challenge, and you've got to be able to take getting
your butt kicked, but you can win with the FSE - besides when you do its
all the sweeter;)
> As regards effectiveness of SMLs, I normally get an 80%+ yield, ie
I'd say I've got a 95%+ hit rate, though I should probably note here
hwoever that we don't use the optional 3" engagement range for SMs in
vector movement (we stuck with the 6") - and it wasn't because the boys
down here took pity on my misses, its because they couldn't hit either!
;)
Though I can sympathise about all the little guys hanging around as decoys for
the SMs, they guys here have taken to putting SCs and CTs under the overhang
of their bigger vessels, which has reduced my hit on intended (big) target
rate down to 75%.
Cheers
Beth
> Beth Fulton wrote:
> You've also got to use that thrust of yours (they call it "Doing the
We normally play with cinematic movement. Under these circumstances, getting
on the opponent's 6 means you have to do a course something like a? in shape.
You can't just "blow past" then spin in a parthian shot. This means that after
the SMLs have gone, the opponent slows down and
you get into a turning duel (with an opponent having 2-3 times your
firepower...).
When using cinematic movement, a 12" move means that the spread of
possible places (assuming a 4" manouver) can be 8-16" in a 45 degree
arc. Lots of opportunities to get the SMLs wrong. I've made up a
template, which I practice with, hence the high yield. I _could_ make it
100%, but in that case the SMLs would target the outer screen only. As it is,
with 85% I can often get a cruiser or two.
G'day ALan,
> We normally play with cinematic movement.
Then the job just got a LOT harder (especially for those pesky fast ships).
> This means that after the SMLs have gone, the opponent slows down and
I'll freely admit here that if I haven't taken out enough big guys for the FSE
to be able to duel it out with what's left then I leave;)
> When using cinematic movement...
Like I said you'be got a tough job and it sounds like you're doing pretty
well! In Showdown (the only game where I've ever played cinematic movement)
there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth (and talk of SMs may be being too
strong) when I managed to get my SMs on target, unfortunately that only really
happened once. Now the SMs have run dry, and I stayed too close to long (and I
can't just leave) and have payed the price big time [though its amusing to
note there's been no discussion of beam weapons maybe hitting too often;)].
Cheers
Beth