From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com>
<snip interesting analis of current balance of power and opinions on FT>
> How does it work in Full Thrust? <snip this analysis, which I happen to
> Because of this fact, I think the balance of
I don't agree. Mass for mass, Fighters are neutralized by PDS/ADFC
(assuming effective tactics).
To redress this,.... the Small Unit Missile System (SUMS).
SUMS costs the same as a salvo missile launcher to install (3 for the launcher
and 2 each for each reload). Point cost is 3xthe mass of the weapons (as
standard). The symbol is a circle containing a salvo missile symbol and the
letter S, with a line to the magazine.
> Maximum range is 50".
This is longer range than any normal weapon in the game. Your later comment
"Surely a system like this is not out of the technological reach of the
particpants." Is IMO belied by the fact that only extreme (Class 5 beams) and
genre weapons have ranges like this.
If they're missiles, they have to be fired at missile launch phase. Any
fighter with a secondary move should be able to avouid them with ease. If they
can't escape, then this system is a 50" scattergun. I don't think salvo
missile costs will quite cut it.
My conclsion: Even if fighters are slightly overpowered (something I disagree
with, certainly if you use morale rules), then SUMS are overkill.
Izenberg, Noam wrote in reply to David Griffin:
> Maximum range is 50".
Not to mention that the longest-ranged anti-*ship* missiles currently
have a range of 54mu... and they take 3 turns to move that far. Fighters are
far smaller, and therefore most likely
harder-to-lock-onto, targets than starships are.
Regards,
The objective is to get one shot at the fighters at range BEFORE it gets close
to the ship. Any other rule construction that does that would be satisfactory.
It's just that fighters move with such phenomenal speed and lack of regard for
momentum.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> --- "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
...
> SUMS costs the same as a salvo missile
The point is to get ONE shot at the fighters before they get into range.
Another better mechanic if you can think of one would be fine to accomplish
that. Effectively this adds the middle line of defense our own modern CVN
fleet enjoys but which our FT ships do not. If the 50" bothers you, then
change it to getting one shot with the SUMS the first turn they move into some
lesser range, but in the event they move all the way to your ship, you still
get a shot while they're moving into range.
In other words, say you decide the range is 18". The fighters start out 25"
and move to right next to your ship. After the fighters moved, you'd get one
shot at them as them moved into range. I don't really care, I just want that
middle line of defense. I wouldn't want to fight a modern naval wargame
without my SAMs either.
Your later comment
> "Surely a system like
These would be fired after the fighters moved. Otherwise as you say, they
would be useless.
> My conclsion: Even if fighters are slightly
So the idea that someone could build a long range missile system to kill space
fighters is crazy talk, is it? But building fighters that can go 36" in one
direction, stop on a dime and rocket back the next turn is an easy
technological feat?
> > missile launch phase. Any
Another way to solve this is that AF-SML's and AF-MTM's engage before
secondary movement. This is a bit iffy though as it introduces another phase.
From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com>
> The objective is to get one shot at the fighters
Understood, but PDS/ADFC do precede fighter attacks and can either
destroy the group, or cause a group to fail morale with even minor damage. The
fighter movement rules have been subject to many discussions on the list, and
several alternate fighter movement systems have been proposed and may indeed
be in use in different places as house rules. If you can take fighter groups
out before they have any chance of dishing out damage, then they're borderline
useless.
> In other words, say you decide the range is 18".
Fighter secondary movement, while burning a CEF, should make this shot
useless, unless you're saying the missiles should be faster than beam weapons.
Also, the AFHAWKS, for example does effectively the same thing. One might even
argue PSB that allows PDS fire to take out closing fighters at range beyond
6". This is simply "narrative flavor" rather than any change of rules: If a
fighter group is closing from 29" to 5" range vs. 5 PDS, they'll take out ~4
fighters on average. Who's to say that some of them aren't falling from massed
PDS at 10" during their attack run? It's all in the interpretation.
That being said, I also don't want to fight a modern naval wargame when I play
FT. Rules that make FT play more parallel to modern naval patterns are a bad
idea, IMO.
> My conclsion: Even if fighters are slightly
> So the idea that someone could build a long range
I didn't say or imply crazy, just overkill.
> But building fighters that can
I could play PSB games with you for days arguing how it could be perfectly
fine, but that's not the real point. Fighters, with their current movement
rules, are balanced vs. the rest of
the systems in the game. Throwing something _more_ in the mix that
effectively neutralizes them at a distance (interceptors can do that already)
makes them not worth putting in the game. The PSB in that consideration is
irrelevant, but, as I said, there are alternate movement rules for you to
pick. Look in the archive for some. Here's a link for another:
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/noam_izenberg/Homebrew.htm#SM/FG_Speed
and another way of attacking fighters at long range (though I'm still worried
about balance issues):
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/noam_izenberg/Skunkworks.htm#LRDFC
In fact, I don't see why the entire concept of SUMS can't simply be replaced
by an Interceptor squadron. It can do exactly what you want - kill
fighters
at a distance - for the same cost of a launcher plus a couple SUMS
rounds. It is in fact better, beuase one Interceptor group can neutralize or
compromize the effectiveness of up to 3-6 fighter groups. Heck, if
missile PSB is that important to you, rename the Interceptor Squadron as
"Robotic Anitifighter Missile Clusters" or some such and think of them as
missile
racks wrapped around and engine+AI core, using the same rules as
interceptors.
One of the true and underutilized beauties of FT is the ability to take the
simple rules and put very different dressings on them to make them "feel"
quite different.
Would you explain this?
Opponent moves a group of fighters in to range of ship. Interceptor moves to
dogfight it. 2-5 other groups move into range of ship. Dogfight kills
some
on each side. 2-5 other fighter groups attack ship.
At best I could see: Round 1: Interceptor group meets 6 incomming opponent
fighters 60mu half way between enemy ships and friendly ships. It dogfights
group A. Round 2: Enemy fighter group B moves 24 toward target ship.
Interceptor group breaks dogfight (taking shots), and dogfights enemy fighter
group
B.
Enemy A (damaged), C, D, E, F move 24 toward target ship. Round 3: Enemy
Fighter Group C moves 24 toward target ship (now within
6).
Interceptor group breaks dogfight (taking shots) and intercepts group C and
dogfights. Enemy fighter groups A (Damaged), B (Damaged), D, E, F move into
range of target ship and attack.
Result: 3 fighter groups compromized/neutralized. After 3 dogfights, the
interceptors will be of limited use and unlikely to pass morale to dogfight
again).
At least some of the interceptor effectiveness is how far away it can
intercept the other fighter group(s).
> Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
> Would you explain this?
Dogfight kills some
> on each side. 2-5 other fighter groups attack ship.
Except that a single interceptor squadron can dogfight multiple enemy
squadrons simultaneously, unless the enemy either sacrifices one of his own
squadrons by initiating a dogfight or spreads his fighters out enough that a
single squadron can't contact at least 2 of his squadrons.
Multiple-group dogfights against interceptors are particularly lethal
if the interceptors win initiative, since they then get to fire before the
opposing fighters... and at an average ~7 kills for an undamaged
interceptor squadron, it can ravage 2-3 opponent squadrons quite badly.
A squadron which has lost 2-3 fighters isn't very dangerous to ships if
you use the fighter morale rules.
So, while I wouldn't expect a single interceptor squadron to neutralize *6*
enemy squadrons (I've seen it happen, but not too often), taking out enough
fighters from 3 enemy squadrons to give them a significant chance of failing
their morale checks *in a single attack* is fairly common IME.
Regards,
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] Ahhh. This is outside of my experience. Unless within striking
range of the target, I have not seen fighters within a base lenght of each
other (except when one initiates a dogfight). But I do see you point.
> Multiple-group dogfights against interceptors are particularly lethal
[Bri] Except dogfight damage is SIMULTANEOUS (FT p.17). So the
Interceptors will dish out more than what they receive, but will still take
substantial damage.
> So, while I wouldn't expect a single interceptor squadron to
> Except that a single interceptor squadron can dogfight multiple enemy
Most veteran commanders DO spread them out.
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
> [snip]
> Noam
> Would you explain this?
<snip most of example>
> Result: 3 fighter groups compromized/neutralized. After 3 dogfights,
Even in this lopsided 6:1 ratio, the interceptors fare pretty well, I think.
though in this scenario, Group A at least will be destroyed on average, so
breaking the dogfight will be unnecessary. I'd probably have the interceptors
dogfight each squadron to death before moving on to the next.
In reality, howver, I don't think you'd have many 6:1 fighter:interceptor
melees, expecially if the primary antifigher defense was interceptors. With
6:2 and your starting scenario, on average 2-ish groups of the original
6 make it in to attack any ships, and a halfway decent PDS net will destroy
them, scare them off, or at least reduce their damage to far less than
crippling. If interceptors are primary fighter defense, then the
attacker:interceptor ratio would likely be 6:3 or lower.
Oerjan's comments make the above somewhat superfluous, though.
Either way, it's pretty clear to me that an interceptor group + bay (9
mass, 36 pts) does pretty much what David Griffin wants a SUMS to do
(Launcher+3
rounds is 9 Mass, 27 pts), if not in exactly the same way.
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
...
> Even in this lopsided 6:1 ratio, the interceptors
Because of the alternating nature of dogfights, even interceptors seem to get
obliterated by normal fighters, especially if there is a 2:1 or better margin.
It seems like an interceptor
squadron will stop 1-2 enemy fighter squadrons
and the rest go on to the ships.
...
> Either way, it's pretty clear to me that an
--- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
...
> > Multiple-group dogfights against interceptors are
Isn't it also pretty lethal for a regular fighter squadron firing at in
interceptor squadron if IT wins initiative? Give say 6 groups of interceptors,
isn't it pretty likely that with the alternating nature of dogfights that 3
will get to fire first and 3 will be attacked before being able to fire?
> Either way, it's pretty clear to me that an
> Isn't it 9 mass, 27 points for the bay, 18 points
You're right of course. My bad math. Further argument against SUMS, though.
Interceptors are designed to take out enemy fighters before they can fire on
ships and, as the argument has been going, they are possibly less effective
than SUMS over multiple turns. Therefore SUMS as conceived is underpriced by
roughly a factor of two.
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> Multiple-group dogfights against interceptors are particularly lethal
Incorrect. One-on-one dogfights are simultaneous, but MULTIPLE GROUP
dogfights ("furballs") are resolved with the squadrons firing in initiative
order (FB1 p.6).
Yes, if the Interceptors attack too many enemy groups at once and/or
don't roll well enough, they'll get mauled too. If they roll well, they can
wipe the enemy fighters out without taking a single hit themselves.
Regards,
Oerjan Ohlson oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it, depends on what you put into
it."
- Hen3ry
> > So, while I wouldn't expect a single interceptor squadron to
> Schoon wrote:
> Except that a single interceptor squadron can dogfight multiple enemy
Depends a bit on how many of them you have. If there are only a few of them
you can afford spreading them out; if you have many, you often get
the choice of spreading them out and being unable to re-concentrate
them for attacks (in which case the PDS will hurt you worse) or not
spreading them out and getting jumped by interceptors :-/
It may of course be that our small distance scale and/or high
velocities are important here - I've never used massed fighters with 1"
MUs or on small tables!
Later,
> Because of the alternating nature of dogfights,
Alternating? They move that way, but IIRC they don't fight that way!
--- Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <s_schoon@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> >Because of the alternating nature of dogfights,
I don't know what IIRC means, but the book seems to indicate that fighter
squadrons alternate firing starting with the side that has the initiative. Is
this not correct?
> I don't know what IIRC means, but the book
If I Remember Correctly.
No, fighter firing is simultaneous in 1 on 1 dogfights.