> The issue is that sea combat does not really map itself to space
[Binhan Lin]
But then again, FT is based on a generic system that allows you to
play all those backgrounds - SW, BG, Anime - which are basically sea
battles in space. The true advantage of ships over fighters, which in most
games is not represented, is that ships can remain on station for weeks,
months or years. Fighters are limited in endurance, which makes them less
useful in patrolling the distant parts of the empire.
Using a pure wet navy example, many smaller nations have
brown-water
navies - patrol boats, hydrofoils etc, that are smaller, cheaper and
faster and carry similar type weapons as most blue water navy vessels. Why
doesn't
the US have a gigantic fleet of hydrofoils/hovercraft armed to the teeth
with Harpoon missiles? Because these vessels are ineffective in projecting
your power past your coastal waters. To carry the war to the enemy, you need
the big ships with endurance. Yes, a little skimpy PT armed with a Harpoon can
disable or even sink a destroyer, and perhaps a dozen might
> On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Binhan Lin wrote:
> Using a pure wet navy example, many smaller nations have
These small littoral combatants don't have the staying power of a larger
blue water combatant in terms of full weapons fit. Admittedly it depends
on weapon fits and tech level. The fight between Egyptian and Israeli small
combatants show that. They can offer quite a nasty punch to the
opponents. Usually the small combatants are single use. Patrol/Strike,
ASW/Patrol, GunBoat.
The US used a significant number of brownwater combatants during Vietnam
in the delta and on the coast. All sorts of quick designs popped up.
Also the USN still has the means to transport such craft to an area. One
tender version is for transproting yard/aux craft to an area of
operations. It looks like a freighter with a big side cut area that all
the small craft sit. The Big tender can be partly sunk to offload/load
the little boats.
> your power past your coastal waters. To carry the war to the enemy,
A couple of PTs that got inside the defensive perimeter of a GVBG could create
untold havoc in close waters...Usually something on the small size
can carry 4-8. The Pegasus Class carried 8 harpoons, a chaff luncher
suite, sensors and a 5"Dual purpose mount. A 60 Knots they would be a force to
be fearful of.
If you enemy plans on landings or protracted operations, he is going to try to
kill these craft. If he doesn't then he can't continue those ops without
expecting some losses due to your small combatants. The other thing about
small combatants is that they are much cheaper than a big assed single
combatant with multiple uses. thus you may be able to use them like popcorn.
Small combatants, combined with fighters and escorts can create a bewildering
amount of fire on larger ships.
Got some big NSL ships to fight, pin them with a few big ships to one
direction then swarm them with small ships and lay mines in their frontal
arcs....Nothing like watching a NSL BDN try to maneuver around mines....
In a message dated 11/4/99 3:14:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> dadams@parracity.nsw.gov.au writes:
> The issue is that sea combat does not really map itself to space
Good points that also aply to under water fighters.
-Stephen
> Eli wrote:
Just a quick opinion, but isn't it the truth, in Naval warfare, that fighters
are deadly. when a fighter today can seriously threaten a warship, I see no
reason why, in the 3D environment of space (other than reaslistic arguements
against space fighters in the first place) a fighter group shouldn't pose as
much of threat. Besides, we all know that in the genre of SF space fleet
battles, the ships are always at the mercy of those daring aces in whatever
machines they fly.
<<<
The issue is that sea combat does not really map itself to space combat.
In sea warfare, aircraft has a huge speed and range bonus to shps, because
aircraft propell themselves through air, not water. If aircaft had to push
themselves through water, they would be easier to intercept, have the same
limitation as ships (ie less turning capacity, speed limitation due to
friction et al).
Darryl
> At 10:10 05/11/99 +1000, you wrote:
To me the best way to "map" fighters into FT, particularly if using vector
movement, would be to move them as say thrust 18 ships and use the endurance
markers not for combat but fuel, each change in direction and or V using 1
fuel chit. Could mean a constant rotation for escorting fighters needing fuel
(just as the enemy missile salvo arrives).
Wilko.