Carriers and other updates

[quoted original message omitted]

> CVA.html

Mass factor seems to be off by a factor of 10.

> CVL.html

Same comment.

> CVE.html

These appear to be a more "wet navy" oriented carrier design, based upon the
primary armament being the fighters. Though from sheer mass, the larger ones
could probably take some punishment, they wouls appear not to be designed for
the battle line.

I've actually been tempted to see if a design like this would stand up, points
wise, against a comperable force. Has anyone tried this?

Schoon said:
> CVA.html

> CVL.html

I haven't tried it, but I would think it's logical for a Line of Battle ship
not to devote space to fighters which could be devoted to weapons or defenses.
Fighters are weapons, yes, but they have the advantage of being long range
weapons. If you build a Frail or Weak carrier and keep it 100 MU away from
enemy cruisers while your fighter wings, then you don't need the
extra hull and armor--instead you need another hanger.
My philosophy is that you ought to have an optimum range and a way to keep the
fight happening at that range. If you build a ship that's a mix of, say, Beam
3's and Torps, you're either going to be wasting your beam's range advantage
or you're going to be parked at 30" hoping your torps occasionally hit.
Suboptimal solution. Obviously a carrier with Thrust 6 or so, a paper hull,
and a horde of fighters, is not going to waste time wondering about what range
to maintain.

G'day guys,

I haven't tried an in isolation case of "flight deck only" carrier vs equal
points, but in a more synthesised fleet they work very well. I have a carrier
with a fragile hull and 14 hanger bays and little more and the system works
well because its sits way way wwwwaaayyy back and never even gets shot at
usually as the opposition is concentrating on what's in their face. Though
I'll admit you've got to make sure it NEVER gets near the line of battle
though as it will go down fast if it gets any decent attention.

Cheers

Beth

> I haven't tried it, but I would think it's logical for a Line of Battle

Agreed completely on "wasting" space for weapons whose long range punch comes
completely from fighters.

However, does this work on the tabletop - where generally your carrier
must be on the table and evade rather than being safely tucked away "off the
board."

G'day Schoon,

> Agreed completely on "wasting" space for weapons whose long range punch

Without knowing how big your tabletop area is, the answer is yes. Our tabletop
is probably about 80" by 50" and on that sized area I have been able to get
away with carriers which are fighter hangers with a few PDS for self defense.
However, as I said before you need a good taskforce to go with them, something
the oppostion can't just ignore in an effort to concentrate on your carrier.
To give you some idea of what I mean, a fleet I've been using a bit lately
basically looks like this:

CVH - fighter base only (few PDS for self protection against MT missiles
etc) this sits back near the table edge.

Main battle line of 2 'ranks'
SDN, BB, CH - this are the guys with the punch (weak hulls, low thrust,
some armour, double screens, mainly one arc 3s, 4s, pulse torps and a few SMRs
or MT missiles)
2xCE, CL - these guys stay between the enemy and the '2nd rank'
(strong/super hulls, screen, ADFC, tonne of PDS, class 2s, pulse torps)

Fast attack wing - these are my one shot wonders (DD or less in size)
that sit back or off to the side until there's an opening then they sprint in
dump their mines/missiles/submunition packs and then get the heck out of
there, but as they have thrust 6 or 8 and there's usually a few of them about
the opposition can't just ignore them either.

This combo works well as long as you keep your wits about you and make sure
you slide etc with the enemy so you always have a situation that looks like

CVH BIG GUYS CEs OPPOSITION

with your fast boats hanging around the edges and the fighters cooridinating
their attacks with each other or missile strikes.

Based on my experience, I don't think a 'wet navy' carrier would work if you
were more inclined to have it closer to the action or had a VERY limited
tabletop area which prevented you from having enough room to keep the carrier
out of harms way as much as possible.

Cheers

Beth

In a message dated 7/4/99 11:30:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au writes:

> Based on my experience, I don't think a 'wet navy' carrier would work

USN carriers stay well away from actual combat areas for exactly the same
reasons. They are very vulnerable by themselves. As part of their defense some
cruisers use their EW assets to appear to be the carrier and hopefully draw
fire from it, if needed. Thrilling job, isn't that? Those of us who served on
small patrol craft also spent a lot of time looking to sneak up on the
oppositions carriers. We put a lot of effort into trying to find ways to sneak
past the long range screen and get into missile range. Could a force of small
DD or CL type ships be used the same way on the table?

John Rebori, ET2 Discharged.
Ex-USS Pegasus, PHM-1 :-)

Beth, Schoon, and others -

> Beth Fulton wrote:

> I haven't tried an in isolation case of "flight deck only" carrier vs

I used a fleet similar to this at GZG-ECC, to extremely good effect
(though I have to admit, my real purpose was to demonstrate that
fighters are WAY too cheap, but more on that in a bit).   My fleet
consisted of (if I remember right):

3 Misner Class Fleet Carriers (167 MASS, 724 points ea.)
   - 3 squadrons attack fighters
   - 3 squadrons standard fighters
   - reflex field
   - 3 PDFC
   - Thrust 4

3 Hawking Class Corvettes (14 MASS, 50 points ea.)
   - 4 PDFC
   - 1 ADFC
   - Thrust 4

4 Penrose Class PT Boats (11 MASS, 39 points ea.)
   - 1 single-arc pulse torpedo
   - 1 fire control
   - Thrust 4

The reflex field is a nasty surprise for anyone who manages to get close
enough to the carriers to attack (by the time anyone gets close, the
fighters are all launched and - since the carriers have no weapons - the
field is up all the time). The corvettes serve to protect against enemy
fighter and missile attacks (the battle group therefore has 24 PDF available
at any one time). The PT boats are, as Beth recommends, to
harass the enemy  - a lucky shot can be very painful.  The fighters are
obviously the main punch, but the disadvantage here is that you really only
have 6 attacks, since the odds of getting the fighters refueled before the
battle ends are fairly small. This still beats SML's generally, though, I
think...

Due to the particular scenario restrictions we were playing under, it was
important that I keep the carrier MASS under 200, but I did explore going with
fragile hulls, as Beth did, in order to increase the number of bays. Beth's
philosophy (correct me if I'm wrong Beth!) is that if the carriers ever get
caught, they're dead. Period. Overall, I agree with that, but if you allow use
of the reflex field (and I wouldn't,
because of my hard-science bias), they actually have a good chance of
giving back as good as they get. So being able to hang on in the fight while
the fighters (if necessary) are recalled is a good thing. Added to this was
the fact that in the sims that I ran (me against me), more
fighters weren't really necessary - 108 fighters, half of them attack,
will decimate any enemy task force of comparable point-size, even if
they are fairly PDFC-heavy (as my target was).

And this is my real beef with fighters - they are way too cheap for the
power you get.  Understand, I'm an ex-navy flyer, so I -love- the
all-fighter carrier concept.  Arming carriers with big guns seems
exceptionally silly to me.  But the only -really- good defense against
massive air power is an equally-massive screen, and so FT becomes a
fighter game (which it doesn't simulate well) instead of a battleship game. My
answer is to make fighters cost the same as a
comparably-design ship (no FTL, Thrust 6-8, and a single Class 1 beam),
because this is effectively what you're getting.

I have to say though, the sight of 100-plus fighters screaming toward
the enemy was an awesome one.. <g>

Just my thoughts...

> In a message dated 7/5/99 9:45:37 AM EST, JRebori682@AOL.COM writes:

<<
John Rebori, ET2 Discharged.
 Ex-USS Pegasus, PHM-1 :-)

> [quoted text omitted]

You were actually ON the Pegasus hydrofoil -  talk about the "wet" Navy.
Oh, well the USN decided to let the Israelis have all the fun with their
missile boat fleet. Of course, with all that speed the hydrofoils still have
to use
slow speed stalks to close on a target, because the "rooster-tail" of
water streaming up by and behind the hydrofoil at speed makes a HUGE radar
return.
Wouldn't hydrofoils with the right emitters have made a handy-deandy
decoy for the big vulnerable carriers!

Michael Brown

Good stuff snipped
8<

I have to say though, the sight of 100-plus fighters screaming toward
the enemy was an awesome one.. <g>

Just my thoughts... Keith

8<

This might not work in a campaign setting. Just how many spares do you have,
and how quickly can you get them in service?

In a message dated 7/5/99 8:06:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> ScottSaylo@aol.com writes:

> You were actually ON the Pegasus hydrofoil - talk about the "wet"
Navy. Oh,
> well the USN decided to let the Israelis have all the fun with their

water
> streaming up by and behind the hydrofoil at speed makes a HUGE radar

I can just see the look on the oppositions face as the CV they just targeted
took off at over 40 knots! LOL
Actually we thought of our tactics as more cat-like. Stalking prey
slowly, or laying in wait. Then when we had a good target solution, going
foilborne and attacking at speed. Something like a cheetah on the Discovery
channel. But with a better average, if our exercises were any judge.

> This might not work in a campaign setting. Just how many spares do you
It doesnt take that long to build a fighter in WW2 the US was cranking them
out squadrons at a time altho pilots is another story but if you are
continually training them it shouldnt be too difficult

In a message dated 7/5/99 2:51:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> cgray@icehouse.net writes:

<< >This might not work in a campaign setting. Just how many spares do you
have,
> and how quickly can you get them in service?
It doesnt take that long to build a fighter in WW2 the US was cranking them
out squadrons at a time altho pilots is another story but if you are
continually training them it shouldnt be too difficult >>

Ummm..yeah..but we aren't talking WWII tech fighters here are we? Modern

fighters take several months to build....and that's if all the subassemblies
come in on time and in good shape...Mind you I like fighters...but you won't
be cranking FT style fighters out in days like the US was doing in the big
one..
David McElhannon

I know for the La Fayette campaign I started playing, it became important that
I brought a fleet train along to resupply all the SMLs & fighters, otherwise I
would have no munitions left by the time I attacked La Fayette. I took 2 fleet
auxiliary transports & loaded them down with spare SMLs & fighters.

The loss of trained pilots was harder though. With no chance of resupply from
outside the sector, everything had to be available. It was worked out
that every squadron had 2-3 extra pilots to account for combat losses
after
rolling for every fighter lost.  1-3 = KIA, 4-5 = pilot recovered, 6 =
pilot
& fighter recovered.  On a bad day, no-one would come back from a
mission, whereas occasionally, 50% of the fighters might be recovered in a
repairable condition.

'Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
Commodore Alfred K Hole - RNS Indy's Folly [CB]
Captain Nicolette O'Teen - RNMS Golden Spear [CB]
EBD Medusa

> -----Original Message-----

> It doesnt take that long to build a fighter in WW2 the US was cranking
Modern
> fighters take several months to build....and that's if all the

I disagree because we are not atr war right now an example isd how they rushed
the steath fighter into combat and we werent doing that at the start of WW2
either when war production gets going it can really go albeit for a few years
anyway

and WW2 fighter were high tech for them at the time so its all relative IMO

Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:48:29 EDT
From: JRebori682@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fw: Carriers and other updates

In a message dated 7/5/99 8:06:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> ScottSaylo@aol.com writes:

> I can just see the look on the oppositions face as the CV they just

You do know the official US line on carriers is "In excess of 30 knots". A
rooster tail as high as the flight deck is pretty impressive. Of course, it
does take a bit to get up to that speed.:)

Actually the paperhull carrier with lots o'fighters makes a lot o'sense...
Plus its a great way to get your opponent to use a fleet with

a nice balance of ships... aka not a couple monsterous ships and that's all.
After all, you're paper thin carrier minus all of its fighters could be in
serious trouble if a lone frigate or a couple of corvetes went after it;)....

Chuck

In a message dated 7/6/99 8:38:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:

> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:48:29 EDT

> > targeted took off at over 40 knots! LOL
:)
> Roger Books
Yeah, Roger. I know it. We used to say Pegasus could go in "excess of 40

knots....more in excess than any one else in the fleet" And it took us about
a minute from dead on the hull to full Military power. :-) Hey, we even
wore seatbelts on watch!

As the one who ran that game, I agree, the 100 fighters were an AWSOME site.

On a personal note, I too think that fighters have too low of a cost compaired
to ships. If you compare the cost of a single fighter (not group)
to the cost of a single Class-1 beam.

Pro's for Fighter:
Effective Range over 2x class-1 beam (18" move + 6" range)
Same cost as class 1 beam. Immunity from threshold checks (once launched)
Immunity from most weapons (class 2+ beams, torps, SML's, etc.)
Attack before main ship weapons
Same or heavier damage as class-1 beams (for Attack fighters)
Attacks more concentrated than class-1 beams (usually a ship does not
have 6
class-1 beams to fire)
Does NOT reqire the use of a Fire Control System Cannot be the target of
Needle Beam (once launched).

Con's for Fighter:.5 mass more than class 1 beam (for hanger) Limited number
of shots (6 turns endurance) Can be attacked by special weapons (PDAF, etc.)
Always attacked before can fire (PDAF, etc.) Main ship on restricted movement
1st round employed (fighter launch).

The comparison is MUCH worse when comparing it to a small ship.

Pro's fighter group vs small ship (mass 9, md 6, ftl, average hull,
1xclass-1 beam, cost 30:
Faster exceleration Greater maneuverability (can turn 180 deg. and move 18") 6
times the firepower. Can absorb twice the damage. Not subject to threshold
checks for engine & core systems. Cannot be wiped out in one shot from one
weapon (the small ship could be
destroyed in 1 shot from a pulse torpedo, sml, or class 2+ beam at close
range). [granted, with re-rolls it is possible for a single PDAF to
destroy a fighter group, but very unlikely).

---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft
---

[quoted original message omitted]

Locally, we resolve fighter attacks after the ship has fired. This limits the
single turn effect on alternating fire. Not that it helps much on the
first turn against 100+ fighters.

At Conquest'99, I fielded 12 fighter squadrons in a 2300 pt game (6 attack, 6
long range). Against the one fleet with no ADFC, they annihilated 1 capital
per turn, but against the rest of the fleets with ADFC, I only got
in 1-2 good attack runs before cumulative PDS fire reduced them below
effective levels. If I had have attacked before the ships fired, my
battleships would probably have survived the battles.

'Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
Commodore Alfred K Hole - RNS Indy's Folly [CB]
Captain Nicolette O'Teen - RNMS Golden Spear [CB]
EBD Medusa

> -----Original Message-----

Brian Bell forgot to include the supporting systems for the fighter bay
> in his comparisions when he wrote:

> On a personal note, I too think that fighters have too low of a cost

> Pro's for Fighter:

No, it isn't. Assuming a ship with 50% of the Mass devoted to hull and
engines (a fairly slow, or weak-hulled, carrier), the fighter costs:

3 (cost of the fighter itself)
+ 3*1.5 (cost of 1/6 fighter bay)
+ 2*1.5 (cost of hull and engines)
+ 3 (cost of basic structure for 3 Mass of hull)
= 13.5 pts.

The Class-1, mounted on the same hull, costs
   3 (cost of the Class-1 itself)
+ 2*1 (cost of hull and engines)
+ 2 (cost of basic structure for 2 Mass of hull)
= 7 pts.

According to my computer 7 =|= 13.5, so the fighter costs almost twice
as much as the Class-1.

> The comparison is MUCH worse when comparing it to a small ship.

This comparision is off, for the same reason as above. Compare the fighter
squadron with a ship with 9 Mass of *equipment* (weapons, FC, PDS) instead,
since that's what the fighters correspond to. The NAC Ticonderogas or Tacomas
are good comparisions to a single standard fighter group.

Regards,