[FT] Fighters - some thoughts

6 posts ยท May 3 2002 to May 5 2002

From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@c...>

Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 22:32:35 +0100

Subject: [FT] Fighters - some thoughts

Well, all the recent discussion about fighters has kind of got me thinking;

Fighter Morale, SV Drones, Robotic and Remote Piloted fighters:

The usual conception (AFAIK) of the fighter morale check is to represent
fighter groups being 'scared off' by too many losses and to much
opposing fire - an alternative view that I like (for reasons see below)
is that it represents the 'self preservation' instinct of the fighter pilots,
who abort an attack run because the 'flak' is just to heavy to survive.

The reason I like this interpretation - apart from style, it allows for
a 'balancing factor' I hope for robotic fighters; either these are programmed
which a survival instinct (the stereotype is that they are not), in which case
they check 'morale' (estimated probability of survival) as normal, and take
losses as normal. If they are without a programmed survival instinct, then
they need not check morale, but suffer double losses (According to my
calculations, a fighter group that does not check morale is about twice as
effective as one that must check morale).

In the case of the Kra'Vak under Ro'Kah, the KV pilots under Ro'Kah have their
reflexes hyped up, so they don't suffer double casualties, but at a cost of
expending all of their combat endurance factor.

I also think that the double casualties effect should apply to SV drone
fighters as well (they also do not check morale).

Remote Piloted fighters (which brings us back to the Andromeda thread
:-) may make morale checks or not as desired (the pilots, 'back home' on
the mothership decide which is more important, conserving fighters, or
attacking). If they chose not to check morale, they will suffer double
casualties.

From: KH.Ranitzsch@t... (K.H.Ranitzsch)

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 00:14:11 +0200

Subject: Re: [FT] Fighters - some thoughts

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@c...>

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 19:53:26 +0100

Subject: Re: [FT] Fighters - some thoughts

In message <006801c1f2ef$de31b670$0100a8c0@Kepler>
> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch) wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
Maybe, but I've just had a horrible thought... someone is going to want
to _ram_ with these!

Any thoughts?

From: Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@s...>

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 21:40:37 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Fighters - some thoughts

> Charles Taylor wrote:

> Remote Piloted fighters (which brings us back to the Andromeda thread
on
> the mothership decide which is more important, conserving fighters, or

The viability of remotely piloted fighters is strongly dependent on the psb of
the measurement unit. If one mu is only a few dozen kilometers, than you are
fine. If one mu is one thousand kilometers, the double delay of pilot

From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@c...>

Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 19:50:14 +0100

Subject: Re: [FT] Fighters - some thoughts

In message <3CD48D95.982F8F42@sympatico.ca>
> Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Charles Taylor wrote:

Valid point - lacking some kind of 'instanta-coms' (which is a whole new
can of worms) you'll probably want to keep remote piloted fighters near
to the command unit - so use them for screening duties.

We could add complexity to the remote piloted fighter rules to have
their performance degrade with distance away from the command vessel -
any ideas?

And it keeps the 'human element' in charge, although personally I'd
rather have the whole show run by hyper-intelligent, hyper-fast machine
intelligences :-)

Anyone got any rules on AI/MI run starships?

From: KH.Ranitzsch@t... (K.H.Ranitzsch)

Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 21:10:28 +0200

Subject: Re: [FT] Fighters - some thoughts

[quoted original message omitted]