Fighters.... and the effects thereof.

Anyone ever think about WW2? It started with DDs with poor AA (few PDS, no
ADFC). As the war evolved, and as the power of fighters became obvious and
dreadful, what happened? New classes of ship festooned with
PDS - including PDS heavy escorts, but every ship had PDS and some had
PDS upfits. You could even call some of what you saw a primitive ADFC effect.

This was one prong of reducing the fighter attack: making the ships painful to
try to attack.

The second was tactics (where the ADFC part appears). Keeping close enough for
mutual support. Thus an effect like clustering and ADFC in FT.

And another prong: Carriers. You watched theirs, tried to torpedo them with
subs or destroyers, etc. You didn't want to let their fighters get close to
your caps. And your fighters went after them. And interceptors defended your
carriers.

What did we learn? One off battles aren't real - there is no context or
lead up. In a *real* situation, the carriers might not make it that
close - your DD screens, submarine packs, and raiding fighters and
island based planes would let you know they were coming so you could evade or
launch a first strike. (In a perfect world). If they did get in range, your AA
was fierce.

So to deal with someone who brings ridiculous paper carriers to battle with
huge fleets of fighters, you have several choices, or a combination of same:
1) Your own carriers. 2) DDs and small ships to kill their carrier before
their fighters are a
threat - they travel in packs and can be very lethal if used right
(thanks Oerjan!) 3) PDS PDS PDS! ADFC! Just double or triple your PDS (or four
times if
need be - they are low mass).
4) Formation tactics: use overlapping fire to rip them up 5) Aegis escorts.
(similar to 3) 6) SPEED. If you have a big enough table, you can outrun the
little buggers. Oerjan is master of the high speed jousts.

These have varying places. But the truth is, you don't expect to nullify them
as a threat. The reason is why should you? Simply put, the enemy sunk in a lot
of NPV. You expect some bang for the buck. All you as the
defender want is to reduce the impact of the threat economically - that
is you must attrit their combat power without spending through the nose. Seems
like a bit bigger ships with more PDS and ADFC would work well. So would
fielding some interceptor squadrons.

Don't expect to eliminate their efficacy entirely - anymore than your
fighter-loving enemy expects to totally nullify your line-of-battle
heavies.

So, in a campaign, their are tactics, engineering changes, and operational
changes that make a difference. The use of combined arms (your PDS escorts,
your own fighters, DDs to cripple his carriers) is also critical. In a one off
game, these effects are harder to reflect
and min-max-monsters are more likely.

There has yet to be invented a weapon that can (I say this in a void as to the
lastest CIA black project mind you) not be defended against or at least
reduced in effect by a good combination of tactics, engineering, and combined
arms usage. In a battle between to near strength powers, it isn't the use of a
given system that wins the war, it is the use of the best combination of same.
(that is overgeneralizing mind you).

T.

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> So to deal with someone who brings ridiculous paper carriers to

Very much so. Furballs together with the MT Fighter Morale rules makes
Interceptor squadrons extremely nasty to incoming enemy fighters; and
if the enemy brings his own Interceptors to protect his strike, well -
he has just reduced the size of the strike for you himself; his
interceptors can't hurt your ships  :-)

> 2) DDs and small ships to kill their carrier before their fighters

The trick is using them right <g>

> 3) PDS PDS PDS! ADFC! Just double or triple your PDS (or four times