Don't worry, this isn't the typical balance complaint. As I'm relatively new
to FT, please excuse me if this has been asked/answered before.
While I'm reading through FT and the new beta rules for fighters, I'm seeing
what I think is a potentially dangerous omission. As I read the rules right
now, there is no limit to the number of fighters that can "screen" a ship. I
think this lends itself to the following tactic: A force with a large carrier
could include a small vessel with large drives and negligible armament. At the
start of scenario, the carrier can launch all of it's fighters, have them all
"screen" the small vessel and then have it drag all of the fighters ahead of
rest of fleet to the enemy. This would allow the fighters to attack the enemy
while the main fleet was still closing. This means that fighters are an almost
infinite range weapon for no more than the cost of a tiny. It seems ridiculous
to allow say 36 fighters to "screen" around a courier. I think there is a
simple fix:
Proposal: The mass of a vessel determines how many fighters can "screen" it.
For each 4 mass that a vessel has, one fighter may accompany it as a screening
fighter. A ship must be at least mass 24 for an entire fighter squadron to
screen it. If it's not mentioned elsewhere: Any fighters screening a ship when
it goes to ftl are automatically destroyed.
Result: Frigates will be the first ships able to have full fighter
escorts. Light cruisers can often have 2 squadrons screening them. Heavy
cruisers 3, BC's 4, etc. Important courier vessels might often have 2 fighters
screening them until it reaches the FTL point.
Explanation: Fighters use a ship's drive field to extend their own range while
screening (pilot's call this "Ride the drive"). Very small ships do not
generate a large enough drive field to permit many fighters to accompany them,
while very large ships can accomodate numerous fighter groups.
Tactics: Capital ships that have one or more fighter groups embarked usually
use them in the screening role to increase the ship's missile and
fighter defenses. UNSC SDN-x's in particular often carry
interceptors when they are in areas where the likely opponents use large
numbers of missiles or fighters. Navies that employ carriers with large
numbers of fighters and weaker
anti-ship weapon suites frequently launch the fighters well
away from the enemy and allow them to procede into battle while screening
other fleet elements. The carrier and it's escorts remain well back,
preferably never entering combat at all. Navies that employ battleline
carriers would launch fighters out of battle and have them screen the carrier
until a proper range was reached for the fighters to break off an attack the
enemy.
Scenario thoughts: Allow fleets with carriers to send their fighters on board
while screening other ships, while the carrier remains off map. You should
require that the carrier have escorts that remain with it (at least a
destroyer and light cruiser for a fleet carrier) and that the owner pay the
costs of these ships even if they never go on map. This probably makes more
sense as a campaign tactic, but in one-off scenarios,
you could have the carrier and escorts come on map on a later turn. Actually I
think this better reflects the tactics of fleets who build carriers that
aren't supposed to stand in the main battleline (like the NAC or apparently
the UNSC).
what do you think?
> start of scenario, the carrier can launch all of it's fighters, have
I agree it would be really cheesy but most players don't seem to start their
ships at velocities that would lend themselves to this tactic. For those that
do, this would be a reasonable way to nail down the loophole. In future, this
loophole probably won't much matter. With the Proposed Fighter Fixes (which
you wouldn't have seen if you just joined the list, they were posted about a
month ago), you'd want to have your fighters arrive at the same time that your
ships pull into weapons range, so he has to chose what to shoot at.
> I agree it would be really cheesy but most players don't seem to
Actually, I have seen the Beta rules. At first glance, I think they'll do
nicely. I agree, the "send the fighters ahead" idea won't be a good one with
normal fleet book ships. The problem is that if this tactic is legal, it
allows people to design carriers with nothing more than ftl, drives, and
fighter bays. Then they can build a fleet of these and small ships to move the
fighters. The carrier launches the fighters, then moves in the opposite
direction as fast as possible. With all the offensive firepower concentrated
in the fighters, you should have little problem overwhelming the enemy.
As a
matter of fact, this is probably an excellent fleet philosophy if it was
possible in "reality".
Still, the worst thing for me is the thought of large numbers of fighters
screening a courier or scout ship. These things are barely larger than the
fighters themselves. A limit to the numbers of fighters able to screen a ship
seem to make sense. At least to me.... :-)
> On 14 Apr 2004 at 10:20, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> Actually, I have seen the Beta rules. At first glance, I think
> be a good one with normal fleet book ships. The problem is that
Which they were doing anyway. Search the archives for 'soap bubble carriers'.
The new fighter rules are, in part, an attempt to make fighters burn CEF
faster so that they need to return to the carrier to resupply. Hence carriers
need to stay closer to the action and need to be designed accordingly.
> Then they can build a fleet of these
It's an all ot nothing tactic. If the fighters don't devastate the enemy
quickly they'll run out of CEF and be picked off whilst trying to make it back
to the carrier, and heaven help the carrier if it tries to close the distance
to pick them up.
Not much different to normal the challenge facing standard fighter-
heavy fleets.
Or to put it another way, how is this any different to the carriers steaming
in at full speed and launching the fighter when close? It saves on the cost of
the courier, runs the risk of the losing all the fighters in one go if the
carrier blows up on the way in, but otherwise is much the same.
> With all the offensive firepower concentrated in the fighters, you
As soon as the courier comes within beam range of the opposing fleet it gets
targetted by enough B3s (or worse still B4s, Stingers or
Pulsar-Ls) to ensure its destruction. No more courier. The fighters
are suddenly escorting nothing and are then limited to standard fighter
movement rates whilst still some way out from their target.
To really work the couriers need to be moving fast enough to close with their
targets without getting shot up, and at the same time to place themselves
close enough for the fighters to attack once they're 'dropped off' by the
escorted courier. That requires a fair amount of tactical skill to pull off.
> Still, the worst thing for me is the thought of large numbers of
Well ultimately the whole escorting mechanic is a work around for the fact
that fighters and ships suffer different laws of physics under the FT rules.
If you have a believability problem rather than game
balance one then use whatever genre-specific house rules work best
for your group. I don't think any of us can say how many fighters can
be "dragged along by the ion-wake of a passing starship".
I'm not sure your proposal would make much difference - the more the
fighters bunch up the easier they are to avoid (or blanket with a nasty number
of Plasma Bolts). Going to the other extreme just means putting one courier
with every fighter group and eats up points.
I think this needs to be actually gamed. See if the problem actually exists in
real games and only then see if any particular solution works. Don't forget to
test with a range of playing areas and ship speeds as the effectiveness of
this tactic looks like it will vary greatly on those factors.
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> While I'm reading through FT and the new beta rules for fighters, I'm
carrier
> could include a small vessel with large drives and negligible
This tactic has been perfectly legal for the past six years - ever since
FB1 introduced fighter screening moves in 1998 - yet so far I haven't
heard of anyone who actually found this tactic a balance problem on the gaming
table. There have been a few theoretical worries like yours, but that's all.
If it hasn't caused any problems until now, I don't think it'll cause any
problems under the new fighter rules either... particularly not since the new
fighter rules makes it more worthwhile than before to coordinate the
fighter attacks with your larger ships :-/
> It seems ridiculous to allow say 36 fighters to "screen" around a
About as ridiculous as strictly forbidding more than 12 fighters from
following a fast-moving enemy scoutship, which is what your proposed
rule does <shrug>
Regards,
> >It seems ridiculous to allow say 36 fighters to "screen" around a
Eh, perhaps it's just me. I'm just having a problem coming up with any
explanation for *how* any number of fighters could stay with a small ship
indefinitely. I can buy (and rather like) the idea that they're using the
ship's own drive field to extend their range/speed, but then it bothers
me that there's no difference between the "field capacity" of a small ship and
an SDN 20 times it's mass. Still, if it's just me, no big deal.
Hmm, now that I think about it, how does a fighter group compare versus a PDS
for mass and effectiveness against missiles? Would you be better off with a
few fighter groups screening you (and providing their own fire control) rather
than using PDS's with fire controls?
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> Eh, perhaps it's just me. I'm just having a problem coming up with any
How do you explain that a Banzai Jammer - which isn't much larger than a
fighter itself - can outrun fighters during short sprints?
> Hmm, now that I think about it, how does a fighter group compare versus
Depends on many things - eg. on how fast your defending fighters get
shot down by the enemy ships (or fighters!), on whether or not the enemy
fighters get close enough to the PDS-equipped ship to be shot at by
them, etc. Fighters are more flexible than PDS, but they can also be more
vulnerable.
Regards,
> Eh, perhaps it's just me.
Not just you; the mechanism for screening has always bothered me, but that was
more for the fighter movement's difference from ship movement.
It's a simplication that breaks down in an attempt to spread it to all cases.
The_Beast
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
An interesting question. Let's see, fighters have limited combat endurance,
but aren't dead in space when that is expended. Ships have no limit to their
combat endurance. Presumably ships have some kind of drive that has no fuel
considerations, or such small fuel usage as to be practically nil. Fighters
apparently have smaller versions of these (for their primary move) that allows
for cruising only. Perhaps the limited cef represents higher output fuel based
engines that can run out. These are used for the extra bursts of speed used in
attack runs, evasive maneuvers, etc. The reason ships can outrun fighters over
a distance is because they cross the threshold point when large full thrust
engines can be installed (either for size or cost reasons).
Ships
have no concerns about just opening the engines wide and leaving. Fighters
have to think about running out of fuel. Hmm, under that explanation, then the
solution might be to require the fighters to spend a CEF whenever they are
screening any ship that is moving faster than the fighter's primary move. Then
the fighter's could choose to use precious fuel to stay with the ship, or
conserve fuel and move on their own. You could "surf" fighters to the battle
faster with a ship, but only at the cost of less endurance when they got
there. Similiarly, no enemy ship could outrun the fighters over a short
distance, but would be guaranteed of doing so eventually (presuming it
survived). What do you think?
> >Hmm, now that I think about it, how does a fighter group compare
> Depends on many things - eg. on how fast your defending fighters get
Let's simplify to just having heavy or salvo missiles attacking. Is there a
point where fighters would be better (or more cost effective), than some
number of PDS? I would ignore the fighter's anti-ship capacity for
now.
> --- "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@cse.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:
> combat endurance. Presumably ships have some kind
No, CEF represents fuel left until "Bingo" state.
As for starships, if they fly between star systems, the amount of fuel
expended in a few hours combat maneuvering is more or less trivial.
> --- "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@cse.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:
Yeah, I think that is the same as what I just said. Perhaps I'm missing
something. A fighter without CEF may continue to use it's primary move,
apparently indefinitely. It just can not attack, or do anything else that a
CEF would allow it to do. If I'm reading the beta rules correctly, it can
defend itself against attacking fighters. The way I read this is that fighters
have some
form of essentially fuel-less engines, just like ships. Note, that
doesn't
mean they are entirely fuel-less, just that the endurance of these
engines is outside the scope of the game. As the rules are written, a fighter
can make an infinite number of primary moves without ever expending a CEF. So
I would argue that primary moves and CEF expending actions use two different
types of engines (or a "fueled" boost to the same engine). Now, if I've missed
something that limits the primary move of a fighter, then I apologize in
advance. I can't recall seeing such a rule though.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:57:36AM -0400, Grant A. Ladue distributed
foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
> Hmm, now that I think about it, how does a fighter group compare
PDS do not run out of CEF. :-)
> grant
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:57:36AM -0400, Grant A. Ladue distributed
Sure, but as the rules stand, a fighter group burns no CEF moving with the
ship they're screening. They'll only burn CEF when they shoot at incoming,
which gives them 6 shots if I'm remembering correctly. How often does a PDS
manage to get off more than 6 shots? Of course, when the fighters are
screening a BDN/SDN, they can always just land and reload as well.
When I first asked the question, I assumed that it wouldn't work. Now I'm
starting to wonder.
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> Sure, but as the rules stand, a fighter group burns no CEF moving with
> screening a BDN/SDN, they can always just land and reload as well.
Now I'm
> starting to wonder.
Bear in mind that your fighters won't be able to fire until after all the
vessels have fired. Having used the new rules on several occasions I found PDS
very useful, via Fire control direction, at taking out enemy fighter groups
thus freeing up my fighter groups to fire on enemy ordinance. As all the PDS
got to fire before the fighters I was able to minimise the number of fighters
I lost to enemy fighter fire, and use my fighters in the roll you suggested.
In these cases my fighters were escorting my own vessels, I only peeled them
off to attack enemy vessels once all the enemy ordanace and fighters had been
delt with.
As for sending fighters ahead screening a fast escort...it just lets the enemy
fleet concentrate all their fire on the fighters who then have to use up CEF's
jinking or risk being destroyed. All you have to do is hammer the fighters,
ignore the escort they were hitching a lift on and
burn in at max thrust and chase the carriers down/off. Any fighters left
will have used up most of their CEF jinking and maybe getting a shot or two
in, and will now risk being stranded with their carriers absent. I'm not
saying that the tactic you sugests couldn't work, I just do not believe it to
be viable enough to work that often against a sensible enemy.
Regards,
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> >How do you explain that a Banzai Jammer - which isn't much larger
*Over a distance*, fine - though I suspect that some pilots of fighters
capable of interstellar travel, eg. X-wings or StarFuries, would have
different opinions :-/ (And I'd prefer to be somewhere else entirely
when you explain to Lord Vader why *one* squadron of TIE Interceptors can keep
up with that small fleeing Rebel freighter indefinitely while a *second*
squadron is completely unable to do so...)
However, your proposed rule makes that distance less than *one tactical
combat game turn's* worth of ship movement for any "excess" fighters -
thus my above question about SHORT sprints.
> >>Hmm, now that I think about it, how does a fighter group compare
Insufficient data for answering the question. * How many defending ships (ie.,
potential missile targets) are there? * Do any of the defending ships have
ADFCs (and are within 6mu of the others)? * How many of the potential targets
actually do get attacked by the missiles? (Each ADFC can only protect one
other ship.) * If the defending ships don't have ADFCs, how are they located
relative
both to one another and to the missiles? (If the ships don't occupy the exact
same spot the attacking missiles could potentially attack one ship
without entering the PDS range of the others at all.)
* How many attacking missiles/missile salvoes are there? (Each FCS can
only direct fire against one missile salvo or one heavy missile each.) * Can
you spare enough FCSs to direct the PD fire, or do you need them for
firing your anti-ship weaponry at enemy ships this turn (eg. the ships
that launched those incoming missiles)? * Are the enemy ships that launched
the missiles within their direct fire
anti-ship weapons' range of your fighters? If so, how many CEFs did your
fighters spend on evasive manoeuvres to avoid getting shot down by the
enemy's anti-ship weapons before they can engage the incoming missiles?
* Not least importantly, what type of fighters are you using -
Interceptors
or Standards? (Attack/Torpedo fighters are nearly useless for PD tasks.)
This list of questions is by no means exhaustive.
There isn't one single point where the fighters overtake PDSs in
effectiveness; instead there is a different such point for each different
tactical situation. To reiterate my above statement: the fighters are more
flexible than PDS, but they can also be more vulnerable. If you need the
fighters' higher flexibility (eg. because there are many missiles and many
potential missile targets) *and* you can prevent the enemy from exploiting the
fighters' higher vulnerability, then fighters can be considerably more
effective in PD roles than their own cost of PDSs and various types of fire
controls. If you don't need the flexibility, or you need it but fail to
protect your fighters sufficiently, then the PDSs will most likely be better.
Regards,
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
I imagine it would be roughly the same explanation as to why the fighters
within 3 mu of the freighter could keep up, but fighters 4 mu away can't.
Actually, explaining anything to Lord Vader is potentially unpleasant.
:-)
Really though, the SW universe is a terrible one for this discussion. SW
fighters are clearly *much* faster than ships outside of light speed. I'm
sure it would make the book-keeping crazy, but SW fighters should
probably
be treated as small ships, with thrust and ftl (for x-wings). I
imagine you
all have heard that before though. :-)
> However, your proposed rule makes that distance less than *one
Unless I'm misremembering, fighters have a primary move of 24 mu, and a
secondary move of 6 mu, right? Now, the only way for a ship to outrun a
fighter right beside it is to be accelerate past a move of 30 mu. That means
it's got one big honkin' engine or else it it was hauling extra fast to begin
with. In the first case, shouldn't a giant engine *be* able to outrun a small
fighter? In the latter case, it doesn't seem like a short sprint to me. I mean
the rule as it is now means that a large ship can *never* outrun a small
fighter, even if it was going at a significant fraction of c and the fighter
had a standing start, so long as they happened to be within 3 mu at the start
of a turn. I hope I don't sound like an active opponent of the screening rule,
I'm not. I'm just sort of talking out my thoughts on it. I'm starting to
wonder if the best answer is to allow a fighter to spend cef's on an extra
primary moves (or half of one or some such). Then you're modelling fighters as
fuel burners, able to pour it on for more speed. For universes like SW just
give the
fighters more cef to model their higher short distance speed over ships.
> > >>Hmm, now that I think about it, how does a fighter group compare
<lot's of excellent complications deleted>
> This list of questions is by no means exhaustive.
Ok, let's *really* simplify it:
Assume a single ship being attacked by 3 salvo missile groups (standard SM's).
No enemy is within range to fire at any fighters screening the ship. No ADFC
or any form of outside assistance is available.
Which is going to shoot down more missiles:
4 PDS or
2 PDS and 1 fighter group screening?
That should adequately simulate a missile attack on a ship approaching the
enemy.
The 2 PDS and 1 fighter group - they're rolling 8 die compared to 4 die
of PDS.
This is only likely on a battlecruiser or similar that carries its own
fighters. There is the mass cost as well; 4 mass for 4 PDS or 11 mass for 2
PDS + fighters.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects. 2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5. Any
electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003. 6. If you do not wish
to receive further emails from the Department of Veterans' Affairs,
> > Which is going to shoot down more missiles:
Well, the 2PDS+Ftr, but if you have the 4PDS, you have 7 mass to do
something else with.
> The 2 PDS and 1 fighter group - they're rolling 8 die compared to 4
Interesting. BDN's and SDN's frequently have 4+ PDS and 1 or more
groups of fighters. They could well be better off dropping the PDS and adding
another fighter group. At longer ranges (where it would be difficult to
seriously effect the fighters), the fighters screen the ship and shoot down
missiles. At close range, they can break off and attack the enemy along with
their ship.
The negative is that the enemy can shoot up your missile/fighter
defenses, the increased mass (not that big a deal on the larger ships), and
the potential of running out of cef. The positive is the flexibility,
increased effectiveness against incoming, no need for fire control, no
vulnerability to threshold checks, and fire directed at your defenses is fire
*not* directed at your ship. Might be worthwhile to try big ships with
dedicated fighter escorts and few or no PDS.
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> Interesting. BDN's and SDN's frequently have 4+ PDS and 1 or more
Not sure I would want to rely wholly on fighters as my defence against
PBL's...
Also bear in mind that in typical encounters the amount of ordanance fired
would often exceed the number of available fighter groups tasked to intercept
it.
PDS and fighters definetly, but just fighters...eeek.
Also bear in mind any fighters tasked to intercepting ordanace will have to
run the gammut of enemy fighter fire before they could engage their targets.
Regards,
> Not sure I would want to rely wholly on fighters as my defence against
Nor AMTs, true. Fighters should probably avoid area effect weapon users at all
costs.
> Also bear in mind that in typical encounters the amount of ordanance
Don't they typically exceed the number of available of PDS as well?
> Also bear in mind any fighters tasked to intercepting ordanace will
True, although your ship can fire on their fighters as well. Of course if
you're getting attacked by fighters *and* ordinance in overwhelming numbers,
then whether you have PDS or fighters isn't your problem, it's that you don't
have enough of either. :-)
I doubt if this is a world beating tactic. On the other hand, it could be a
useful tactic for large vessels against the right opponents.
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> Actually, explaining anything to Lord Vader is potentially
Exactly. It was nice knowing you, Grant Needa...
> Really though, the SW universe is a terrible one for this discussion.
So is the BattleStar Galactica universe. So is the Space: Above And Beyond
universe. So are the Babylon 5 and Renegade Legion universes, and any other
fighter-using SF universe I've seen to date where the background physics
are not derived from this particular game mechanic. (In fact, I strongly
suspect that the only SF universe which would *not* be a terrible one for this
particular discussion is one you yourself has created based on the
game mechanics, and where your own game mechanics-derived background PSB
is
therefore in force :-/ )
> >However, your proposed rule makes that distance less than *one
You are misremembering, though it doesn't matter for the discussion. Fighters
have primary moves of 24 or 36 mu depending on whether or not they're Fast,
and a secondary move of 12 mu no matter what type they are.
> Now, the only way for a ship to outrun a fighter right beside it is to
Past 36 or 48 mu/turn. That's seven or nine turns of acceleration from
zero by an NAC or FSE heavy cruiser straight out of FB1; less if the ship is
already moving... usually about one turn's worth of accelleration if I'm
flying it :-/
> That means it's got one big honkin' engine or else it it was hauling
Extra fast? Personally I consider 30-35 mu/turn to be a pretty normal
cruising speed for thrust-6 ships, but that's me :-/
> In the first case, shouldn't a giant engine *be* able to outrun a
Outrun a fighter which itself consists mostly of engine, and has far less mass
for said engine to push? Very doubtful IMO, unless you're talking about much
longer distances and time scales than you get in a tactical FT battle.
> In the latter case, it doesn't seem like a short sprint to me.
Seven turns of movement from standstill for an NAC or FSE heavy cruiser still
looks like a pretty short sprint to me, I'm afraid. Particularly in stern
chases (like the example you provided below), of course.
> I mean the rule as it is now means that a large ship can *never* outrun
Correct; and your original proposal also means essentially this same thing
- a large ship may be able to outrun SOME of the fighters, but your
concept means that it can never ever outrun ALL of them no matter how fast it
flies.
Your second concept - burn CEF whenever the fighter is moving faster
than X
mu/turn - avoids this feature, but has an interesting feature of its
own: it explicitly forces the fighters to burn fuel to *maintain* an achieved
"higher-than-normal" velocity even if they're moving in a straight line.
Air resistance in deep space, or something? :-)
Over to the PDS-vs-fighters comparison:
> Ok, let's *really* simplify it:
Interesting tactical situation. If there are no enemy ships nearby but your
ship is the target of missiles, you pretty much has to be the chaser in a
stern chase - your ship may be approaching the enemy, but the enemy
units are moving *away* from your ship (otherwise they'd almost certainly be
close enough to shoot at your fighters by the time the missiles arrive) and
seem to be dropping missiles behind themselves to slow you down. The absence
of any friendly ships suggest that your ship is singlehandedly trying to chase
down an enemy squadron... not necessarily a good tactical idea, but if you're
a battledreadnought chasing enemy cruisers or similar it could work out OK.
(The admiralty might ask some rather pointed questions about what a BDN is
doing haring off without its escorting lighter units, but let's assume that
your escorts have already been
destroyed/crippled in the earlier fighting. Could even be the last
turn's missile launch that nailed them, of course.)
But I digress. In this specific situation, the PDSs don't need *any* FCS or
ADFC guidance at all (there is only one possible target for the enemy missiles
to attack, all the PDSs are mounted on that one target, and PD weapons don't
need FC support to engage missiles that engage the ship they're mounted on);
similarly the fighters have no use for their inherent
better targetting flexibility - so you're only comparing the 4 PDSs
themselves with 2 PDSs + 1 fighter group.
The 4 PDSs fire 4 dice at the missiles; the PDS/fighter combo fires 8
dice
- ie. exactly twice as much. If you only look at the number of missiles
shot down, it should be pretty trivial to determine which of the two is more
effective.
However, the total *cost* (ie., including the cost of the basic hull
structure, engines etc. supporting the systems) of those 4 PDSs is only
20-25 pts whereas the total cost of 2 PDSs + 1 fighter group is 70-80
pts
(or even more, for some designs). In other words, the PDS/fighter combo
shoot down *twice* as many incoming missiles as the 4 PDSs, but it costs at
least *three times* as many points to buy. Suddenly the choice isn't quite
as clear-cut any more, particularly if you have a limited amount of
points to buy your ships with.
If you add some FCSs and/or ADFCs to the 4 PDSs, their total cost goes
up
quite fast - which pushes the balance further towards the PDS/fighter
combo. If you add in anything that could shoot your fighters down before
your fighters can attack the incoming missiles, the PDS/fighter combo no
longer gets its original 2:1 firepower advantage over the 4 PDSs, which pushes
the balance the other way instead.
From Grant's later posts in this thread:
> BDN's and SDN's frequently have 4+ PDS and 1 or more groups of
As you can see above, doing this would also increase these ships' points
cost a fair bit.
> The negative is that the enemy can shoot up your missile/fighter
The increased *mass* isn't that big a deal. The increased *cost* can be quite
significant however.
> and the potential of running out of cef.
That's a pretty damn high potential, unless the battle ends quickly :-/
> The positive is [snip a number of true positives] no vulnerability to
"No vulnerability to threshold checks" is a pure red herring: fire directed at
your defending fighters *destroys* (cannot be restored by damage control
parties) one "PDS equivalent" (ie., fighter) per beam hit inflicted,
instead of *damaging* (can be restored by damage control) on average 1-2
PDSs in the first threshold check after some 20-30 beam hits (for the
FB1 BDNs and SDNs that is; for custom designs these numbers will of course
vary quite a bit).
Similarly the fact that fire directed at your defending fighters isn't
directed at your ship is also a bit of a red herring: while your *ship*
doesn't risk losing any weapons to threshold checks as long as the enemy
concentrates on the fighters, your *fleet as a whole* loses one beam die's
worth of offensive firepower for each beam hit on the fighters.
(Generally speaking, you seem to be thinking in terms of one single ship at a
time. Unless your entire fleet actually consists of only one single ship,
this approach has a rather large numbers of pitfalls - you need to look
at the entire fleet as a whole to avoid them.)
> >PDS and fighters definetly, but just fighters...eeek.
On a single ship, yes. In an entire fleet, usually not (though of course it
depends on the exact fleets used).
Regards,
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
:-)
> >Really though, the SW universe is a terrible one for this discussion.
Ya know, I thought so too, but now I'm wondering. If you give the fighter the
ability to move farther with cef, it might be possible to model any of these
universes just by juggling the number of cef a fighter has. It wouldn't be
exact, but nothing will be except shredding the whole thing and starting
from scratch each time. hmmm.... :-)
> > >However, your proposed rule makes that distance less than *one
fighters - thus
> > >my above question about SHORT sprints.
> they're Fast, and a secondary move of 12 mu no matter what type they
Thanks. I looked about in old discussions, but couldn't find it before I
posted.
> >Now, the only way for a ship to outrun a fighter right beside it is
From a dead stop (admittedly rare) the fighter is going to run out of cef
several turns before the ship it's attacking or screening accelerates away
from it. It seems like the fighters in the game are designed to be combat
effective (ie burn through their cef) for only about 3 turns with the beta
rules. I would consider that 3 turn "combat effectiveness" to be the measure
of how long a fighter should be able to keep up with a ship. Why should a
fighter be able to stay with a ship for much longer than it could actually
fight the ship?
> >That means it's got one big honkin' engine or else it it was hauling
Now, from the AAR's I've seen on the web, I don't think people are flying that
fast. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyone want to step in with their average speeds? At 1
mu = 1", you're going to flying off the edge of the average gaming table in 2
turns at that speed. Even with moving maps, divergent courses at those speeds
are going to need extra table space very quickly indeed. Perhaps the best idea
is to set your fighter's primary move nearer to the normal starting speed of a
ship. Then they can't leave each others envelopes quite so fast.
> >In the first case, shouldn't a giant engine *be* able to outrun a
> about much longer distances and time scales than you get in a tactical
If they both worked with the same physics set, I would agree, but they don't
seem to. In any case, I would also argue that the fighter has much less
reaction mass to push *with* as well. Unless there is some reason for a
fighter's engines to be much more efficient than a ships, then I would think
that it's very reasonable for a ship to be faster than a fighter. A fighter
does have some space/size restrictions, while a ship really has none.
A ship can be 99% engine much more easily than a fighter.
> >In the latter case, it doesn't seem like a short sprint to me.
I still see it as more than twice the combat effective duration of a
fighter. Heck, how many actual games take much more than seven turns?
> >I mean the rule as it is now means that a large ship can *never*
I concede the point. I guess my main problem there is the idea of a 5 man
scout ship towing along 36 one man fighters at no cost to fighter nor ship.
It's probably just my own sense of the ridiculous getting tickled, where
limiting the number of fighters a ship could pull mollified it some.
:-)
> Your second concept - burn CEF whenever the fighter is moving faster
Well, that's built into the rules already. This would just give the fighter a
way to go faster when the situation warranted.
> Over to the PDS-vs-fighters comparison:
<< lot's of post deleted for space sake >>
> The 4 PDSs fire 4 dice at the missiles; the PDS/fighter combo fires 8
Quite true, although you can probably buy one less fire control that would
normally be dedicated to the PDS as well.
> If you add some FCSs and/or ADFCs to the 4 PDSs, their total cost goes
I wonder. What can attack fighters when you're 12 mu from the enemy ship? How
much damage potential do they lose by not shooting at the ship itself?
> From Grant's later posts in this thread:
points
> cost a fair bit.
Yeah, I can see that.
> >and the potential of running out of cef.
True. Still, I'm wondering how many rounds of really effective
anti-missile
or fighter fire is needed in the average combat. Do most missile users run out
of their large volleys after 3 turns?
> >The positive is [snip a number of true positives] no vulnerability to
> >threshold checks, and fire directed at your defenses is fire *not*
> directed at your ship is also a bit of a red herring: while your
Yeah, but if he/she is spending firepower on what you're using for
defensive firepower, I would think you are automatically getting more
firepower against his ships than he is against yours. In effect, he's spending
fire on shooting at your PDS (the fighters) with no chance of hitting hull. On
top of that, he's just lost any extra damage each hit would do beyond the
first point. Meanwhile your weapons are aimed at his hull and are doing their
max damage potential. I don't think that's going to be a good trade off for
the opponent. Would you shoot at a PDS when all you could damage was the PDS
itself?
> (Generally speaking, you seem to be thinking in terms of one single
Well, it's primarily because an entire fleet is just too complicated to
analyze. If you don't simplify it somewhat, it's too hard. What works for a
single ship versus an equal point count of ships should scale roughly to
entire fleets. It's not exact, but it's a lot more manageable.
> > >PDS and fighters definetly, but just fighters...eeek.
I would think that if points were equal on both sides, it wouldn't make too
much of a difference between a ship vs ship battle and a fleet versus fleet
battle.
In any case, this has gotten to be a most interesting discussion.
:-)
> True. Still, I'm wondering how many rounds of really effective
I usually have one big one or two small ones. But I use rack-mounted
missiles rather than launchers.
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> Also bear in mind that in typical encounters the amount of ordanance
> Don't they typically exceed the number of available of PDS as well?
Sorry, I should have been a bit more clear. What I meant was that if a fleet
relies solely on Fighters alone, and say, for example, it has 8 fighter
groups, it will start to get into difficulty if it is attacked
with 9+ ordnance style weapons (SML's, PBL's, AMT's).
Now, the other week, I had a small 2000 cpv fleet, consisting of 4 destroyers,
1 heavy cruiser and 2 light carriers which between them had
24 PDS, 26 B-2 and 8 heavy fighter groups. These in turn were swarmed by
55 boarding pods (from a 4000 cpv fleet), fortunately in three waves. In the
end I only lost 1 destroyer to boarding, the heavy concentrations of
PDS/B-2/fighters managing to take care of everything else (well, apart
from 1 Boarding pod which successfully reached one of the CVL's, but the crew
of the carrier were able to deal with the boarding with minimal casualties).
However, in dealing with the boarding pods I was unable to concentrate fire on
the enemy fleet...which then blew away the 2 of the remaining
destroyers, and the heavy cruiser, and half a CVL with sub-munition
packs before my allies (2000 cpv of more regular direct fire design)were able
to turn round and chase the enemy off...talk about a close shave...(I only
lost 1 fighter group though, gotta love those heavy
fighters! :-D ).
Bit of an extreme example, in regards to the discussion as a whole, I know but
it was fun.
Regards,