The Nature of Fighter Combat involving Starships
------------------------------------------------
Can fighters appear in future universes? Of course they can. Considering
that we are talking science-fiction, you can design the appropriate
balance of technologies into your universe to make fighters viable weapons.
But what type of balance is required to make fighters viable? Let's examine
what makes fighters useful as instruments of war. To help, analogies will be
drawn with 'wet navy' aircraft carrier operations over the past sixty years.
This will be a somewhat 'soft' argument, as I am delibrately trying to avoid
concrete numbers, and speak in general terms. This means I will use terms
'small', 'large' etc. which are open to interpretation. I use these terms in
their relative sense; a 50 000 tonne attack craft may be considered small vis
a vis a 2.5 million tonne destroyer.
First of all, a question of terminology. When I say 'fighter', I mean
all sorts of 'small' attack craft - interceptors, air superiority craft,
attack, bomber, recon, etc.
Second of all, let us make the assumption that in order to be a useful weapon
of war, fighters must have the ability to damage warships relatively
efficiently. It is through warship damage that the fighter can most
directly influence the outcome of battle. It is assumed that all other
'fighter' functions - recon, defence, etc are either derived from, or
are in response to this type of threat.
Therefore, what preconditions must be satisfied before fighters are useful
weapons of war?
1) A fighters maneuverability sphere must be much greater than a warships
maneuverability sphere over a given small period of time. (By a
maneuverability sphere, we mean the possible position of unit within certain
time and velocity condtions.) A fighter must have the ability to chase down a
warship, in order to be able to hit it. Since it can be safely assumed that a
fighters range will be much less than a warships, a fighter must make up for
it in terms of speed, being able to get to the warship before the warship can
get out of range.
In terms of modern carrier operations, a modern fighter craft (F/A-18)
has
almost a twenty-five times speed advantage over a warship, when both are
at cruise. While a modern nuclear warship has a range almost one hundred times
that of the fighter craft, the fighter has the ability to chase down the enemy
warship to utilize its weapons before the warship can get away.
2) Fighters must be survivable against the defences of the enemy ship.
Fighters, by nature of their small size, have customarily relied upon
maneuverability and stealth as their primary defences against enemy fire, as
opposed to durability. If weapon technology improves to a point where 'If we
can see it, we can hit it' becomes a practical reality, then fighters as a
weapon become that much more vulnerable.
In terms of carrier ops, modern fighter craft use stealth, defensive
electronics, tactics, and maneuverability to keep loss rates at 'acceptable'
levels. Defense weapons either have high accuracy but low range (e.g. CIWS
systems) or long range, but are vulnerable to countermeasures (e.g. SAMs).
3) Fighters must have weapons that can damage enemy warships, otherwise the
point of the exercise is lost. One of the arguments (eventually proved false)
used against aircraft for naval strikes in the 1920's was that a battleship's
armor was invulnerable against the armaments available to aircraft at the
time. This was proved false when Billy Mitchell and his demonstration squadron
sank a captured German battleship.
The balance between these three factors will influence how fighters are used;
indeed if they are viable at all.
For example, in current times, fighters have much higher speeds than their
target ships, are fairly survivable against ship based weapons and are only
vulnerable to other fighters, and carry relatively cost effective weapons that
can severly damage or even sink ships. Hence, aircraft in current times are
considered a decisive weapon for attack and defence, and are considered a
cornerstone for a navy performing power projection. And, until recently, they
had an enormous advantage over shipboard weapons, being more accurate and
carrying a larger payload. (The maturing of the standoff cruise missile and
the increase of sophisitication of air defences has changed the equation
somewhat; with what results remains to be seen.)
Thus, current doctrine favours independent strikes by mutually supporting
types of aircraft, at long range if at all possible.
Compare this to the FT universe. FT fighters, while more maneuverable than
their target warships, do not have an enormous speed advantage. They are
lethal to smaller warships, but have trouble taking on the largest warships by
themselves, because Level 3 screens renders batteries very weak, and the 3
turn endurance means fighters (if they survive fire that long) do not have the
time to peck their way to a threshold check. Thus, FT fighters are used in
support and screening roles, used as extra firepower at a decisive moment, but
unable to render a decisive decision by themselves.
(A FT battle as an equivalent to the Battle of Midway would be much more
difficult, if not impossible to pull off.)
Okay, I'm done rambling. (8-) Comments are welcome.
J.
In a message dated 98-02-15 05:44:07 EST, you write:
<< For example, in current times, fighters have much higher speeds than their
target ships, are fairly survivable against ship based weapons and are only
vulnerable to other fighters, and carry relatively cost effective weapons that
can severly damage or even sink ships. >>
Just a comment:
Modern ship weapons are actually very effective against A/C. The
"fighters" ability to survive is mostly because they don't even try to get
close. Instaed
A/C with antiship missions rely on long range stand off weapons like
Harpoon or Exocet launched from over the horizon.
Prehaps that will be the most deterministic factor in space combat (game or
future): no horizon to hide behind. The target ship will certainly be carrying
waepons as effective as any fighter.
> Jerry Han wrote:
do
> not have the time to peck their way to a threshold check. Thus, FT
...Small Snip...(JTL)
Jerry, First, let me say that there is NO ESCAPE!
Second, I agree with 99% of your message.
Third, The only way to 'solve' the items you have mentioned is to go the route
of the dreaded 'house rule'.
Examples/counter comments/suggestions/whatever:
Fighter speed: If a fighter wishes to excede its rated speed, the player
simply announces the fighter is retaining its speed for the
next turn. On the next turn the fighter may accelerate form
its current speed of 12 (or 18) to as much as 24 (or 36) but it must move as
if it were a ship with thrust 12 (or 18). Problem solved, the fighter is now
faster than a ship! (Based upon a presumption of mine that the fighters are
stationary at the start and end of the turn.)
Big ship challenge: Answer, the torpedo fighter and to a lesser extent the
attack fighter. (The problem here is keeping these fighters alive long enough
to be useful.)
Fighter endurance: It is apparent to me due to certain comments made during
these communications that I have never really followed fighter endurance
rules. (Place this comment in the "True Confessions" department.) Example: A
fleet carrier launches 2 fighters a turn for 3 turns, the carrier is doing
speed 10. The strike goes out makes three
attacks (W/no losses) and returns to the carrier three moves later.
Now the bad news, the last combat occured at 36 inches from the
carrier. Good news, the fighters can make it back in three turns
of movememt and a fighter is recovered on the third turn of movement. Really
bad news, the other five fighter squadrons are considered lost due to fuel
depletion and cannot be recovered. Notes: If the last fight had been at 24
inches or less 2 groups
could be recovered. At 12 inches or less 3 three groups.
At least three groups will always be lost under the current rules. House Rule:
Eliminate the rule on endurance after combat. Notes: The elimination of this
rule will make carrier operations conform to the real world (more or less).
A Midway battle could be done but the game master would provide the breakdown
of the fighter types available to the players. (U.S.A.= 2 standard fighters, 3
attack, and 1 torpedo and the Japanese = 2 standard fighter, 2 attack and 2
torpedo perhaps.)
A house rule: Eliminate ranged attacks of fighters, replace W/base
to base contact required for combat.
A house rule: Order of movement 1) FT missiles. 2) Ships in order of thrust,
low (1) to high (8) 3) Fighters Combat occures in reverse order.
Feel free to comment,
Bye for now,
[snip]
> Fighter endurance: It is apparent to me due to certain comments
I think I have already posted something on this a fair while back, but I fully
agree. The "three turn endurance after combat" rule is a problem, and should
be ignored (that is an "OFFICIAL RULES PRONOUNCEMENT"...!) Fighters that have
exhausted their COMBAT endurance cannot fight, but may take as long as they
like to return to their carriers. If they are "bounced" by other fighters on
the way back, then whether they defend at a penalty or cannot defend at all is
up to personal choice at this point
(ie:
we haven't decided yet!!).
Another SUGGESTION (rather than a tested rule) is that we increase combat
endurance to 6 turns rather than 3, but add an extra twist: if using MT
fighter movement (ie: before ships), a fighter group that finds itself too far
from its target to attack may take an extra move (maybe 12") after ship
movement, and then attack - but doing so costs it one turn's worth of
combat endurance (hence the increase to 6 CE, to give a few to spare). This
may get round some of the criticisms of the MT move sequence, while preserving
the reasons we like it. Opinions?
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:32:35 +0000, Ground Zero Games
> <jon@gzero.dungeon.com> wrote:
> Another SUGGESTION (rather than a tested rule) is that we increase
This
> may get round some of the criticisms of the MT move sequence, while
I like it! I haven't thought through all the implications, but it does make an
interesting compromise. I had no problem with the movement system in MT but
some did. This might make a good mix that everyone could live with.
> On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:32:35 +0000, Ground Zero Games
This
> may get round some of the criticisms of the MT move sequence, while
> On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:32:35 +0000, Ground Zero Games
This
> may get round some of the criticisms of the MT move sequence, while
Glad you like the idea - if anyone feels like trying it in play, please
let us know the results!
The PSB feels right to me - to conserve power for combat manoeuvring,
fighters will commit themselves to an approach vector based on where they
think the target will be when they arrive, but if the target changes course
radically and they see they will not make the intercept they are agile enough
to make the necessary sudden course change, but at the penalty of
using a lot of precious fuel/power. Combined with upping fighter basic
movement to 24" or even 36", this should make fighters able to chase down
any but the fastest-moving and most agile ships, but at a price.
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 07:02:16 -0800
> More unnecessary complications. How is someone gonna keep track of an
Simply require him to line up empty beer bottles for each point of endurance
used. If he is forced to leave the room during the game (for obvious reasons)
remove one fighter group at random from the board (he probably won't notice
this, so there is no need to inform him!).
This should bring new meaning to the "Full" in Full Thrust!
More unnecessary complications. How is someone gonna keep track of an
opponents 6 fighter groups' endurance after two pints?
> At 08:32 AM 2/17/98 +0000, you wrote:
after ship
> movement, and then attack - but doing so costs it one turn's worth of
> More unnecessary complications. How is someone gonna keep track of an
Easy, make the endurance directly proportional to the number of pints drunk.
That way, players can increase the endurance of their fighters at the expense
of tactical excellence. <GRIN>
If they get REALLY drunk, the endurance is effectively infinite, ie. the
player falls asleep, forgets he's playing, knocks them into oblivion, loses
track of the number of beer he's drunk, etc.
Didn't you guys know that FT is actually a _drinking_ game? ;-)
Bye,
> More unnecessary complications. How is someone gonna keep track of an
Death and Destruction first, beer later. After I've had two pints, I'm sure my
worry about that would be small compared with my worry that my tactics decline
(no comments from those I've gamed with) to the point where that would be the
least of my worries....
*grin*
TB.
> > More unnecessary complications. How is someone gonna keep track of
And for additional entertainment, when he isn't looking, add bottles to his
line, thus consuming his fighter endurance (this would go under the offensive
countermeasures category).
> This should bring new meaning to the "Full" in Full Thrust!
Can you say "The Full Thrust Drinking Game"..... (Now that gives me an idea or
two..... but only for use with someone else's minis......)
Tom
> At 14:25 17/02/98 -0500, you wrote:
"YOU'RE DRUNK!"
"I'M NOT DRUNK _ENOUGH_!"
(Kirk Douglas and Ernest Borgnine during traditional Norse
throwing-axe wench-plait-shearing contest, in "The Vikings")
Skol! Rob
(sudden reminiscence of Poul Andersen's beer-driven rocket, too...)
> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Joseph A. Troche wrote:
We put a six-sided die next to the fighter groups to show its combat
endurance, and it works very well.
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 07:02:16 -0800, "Joseph A. Troche"
> <trochej@spiritone.com> wrote:
> More unnecessary complications. How is someone gonna keep track of an
At GenCon I saw that most people use two dice with their fighter squadrons.
One die is the number of ships and the other die is the number of turns of
endurance. The endurance thing was introduced in More Thrust. I picked up a
bunch of smaller (10mm, I believe) dice at GenCon just for this purpose. They
look fairly attractive beside the ships, I might add.
Tom Barclay said:
> Can you say "The Full Thrust Drinking Game"..... (Now that gives me
Eeek!
Tom usually plays with my miniatures, and we had two casualities last time
we played (Frigate and Battleship - ouch !)
Tom + Dana McCarthy
Tom spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Tom Barclay said:
> Eeek !
For the record, Admiral McCarthy, I was responsible for the unfortunate and
untimely loss of the Battleship. I believe saboteurs or foul traitors were the
cause. I'm thinking it was not I that wrote off the Frigate. And the
Battleship was repairable..... (Where are those Dam Con teams????).
(*Grin*)
/************************************************
> Another SUGGESTION (rather than a tested rule) is that we increase
This
> may get round some of the criticisms of the MT move sequence, while
I too, like this. Jon, is it too late to make the FT Fleet Book?
In message <Pine.SUN.3.94.980217171727.316B-100000@ss4.digex.net>
> Rick Rutherford <rickr@ss4.digex.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Joseph A. Troche wrote:
I've got two sets of numbers stuck to the back of my fighter bases, each with
a pin stuck into one of the
numbers. One set is 1-6 (number of fighters), the other
is 0-3 (endurance).
Works quite well.
I use a rubber matting for my 25mm scale bases. I cut a small die-sized
depression in the corner of each. I use small die to show the number of
fighers in the group. Since there is only one fighter mounted on each base
there is room for a second die. However, why not have the number of fighters
in a group but leave the cost and mass of the "group" the same. Everyone hates
fighters.
> At 07:18 PM 2/18/98 +0000, you wrote: