Hey guys a quick question. Now admittedly I'm not the most experienced Full
Thrust player, but every game I've ever seen involving fighters has cast them
in a much different role than they are used in 20th Century.
Instead of using them autonomously for long-range BVR (Well actually BDR
<beyond detction range> of the main fleet that launched them.) fighter only
strikes, they are used in main fleet actions in support of capital ships.
This would be equivalent to a battleship or cruiser surface action where you
have fighter involved flitting around taking pot shots at everyone. Is this
the general use of figherts in FT, (that is in combined operation with close
range fleet actions) or are these games I've witnessed anomolies.
Anyway, nowadays, fighters (I'm using the term generically to mean carrier
based aviation) are supposed to be a (relatively) low cost and effective means
of striking at enemy targets without exposing very high costs assets to
destruction (like surface vessels). In our hypothetical discussions we seem to
be loading incredible amounts of sophistication into these crates. What's
the economic cost of these things and can governments like the NAC/NSL
etc etc bear the burden of kitting out these everything to everybody craft and
still amintain aenough forces to cover their vast empires? Especially if one
fights their fighter arm as described above?
Current FT fighter tactics are dictated by the endurance rules, specifically,
if the fighters haven't returned to the carrier by the end of the 3rd turn
after they run out of endurance, they are considered destroyed (MT). This
tends to keep the fighters within about 40" of their home carrier to allow
rearming.
'Neath Southern Skies
*********************
Smeartrek: These are the voyages of the Starship Bubbles. It's continuing
mission, to destroy new worlds, outbreed alien civilizations & to boldly go
where not even idiot's dare to venture.
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
> -----Original Message-----
What's
> the economic cost of these things and can governments like the NAC/NSL
> Instead of using them autonomously for long-range BVR (Well actually
My use of fighters depends greatly on the numbers involved. If I use a carrier
I tend to send all the fighter groups against one ship, though I must admit I
think 12 inches is too slow for fighters so I do tend to double all fighter
speeds. Typically on a carrier I use a flight of topedo fighters, a flight of
interceptors for torpedo escort and four flights of heavy fighters for general
stuff. I feel using this mix a carrier wort of fighters can then act
independantly in front of the fleet. If I only have
a couple of groups (deployed from an escort carrier/bdn) I tend to keep
these close as escorts, or when required I send them after crippled ships for
a killing blow rather than use good ships to chase a crippled ship.
OK, so I don't know if this matches any current doctrine as I think I'm one of
the rare ones on the list who doesn't actually know anything about current
airforces and fleets. Although, from being in the reserves I did learn a
little about tabbing under a Bergen doing infantry stuff, perhaps
that's why my Stargrunt guys ride round in APCs :-)
> At 04:22 PM 2/13/98 +1100, you wrote:
FTIII does away with this and replaces it with three (I think three) ATTACKS.
Thus you can fly out as far as you want but only have a few shots.