[GZG] [FT] fighter mix

Let's say you have the ESU Konstanin carrier with 6 available fighter groups.
Also, let's say you can spend 120 points on fighters. What mix of fighters
would you purchase and why? Do some fighters give you more bang for the buck?
Are there types to avoid?

--Greg

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l1 group bomber, 2
group intercepter, 3 group standard, best of attack and defence aswell as
flexibility to change mission protocol in cap stations.

> Gregory Wong <sax@soundingrocket.com> wrote:
Let's say you have the ESU Konstanin carrier with 6 available fighter groups.
Also, let's say you can spend 120 points on fighters. What mix of fighters
would you purchase and why? Do some fighters give you more bang for the buck?
Are there types to avoid?

--Greg

I love my IJSF mecha...they get to be both! ;-)

> --- Charles Lee <xarcht@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 1 group bomber, 2 group intercepter, 3 group
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> ---------------------------------

Not in a budget of 120 points for 6 squadrons they don't.
[quoted original message omitted]

If I had just a little more than 120 budget I'd go for four regular fighters
and two torpedo bombers, which is 144.  _Maybe_ I'd go with an
interceptor in place of one of the four regulars, but I like being able to use
my fighters with the option of either trying to establish superiority or
striking enemy ships with all six groups if there's no enemy fighter screens
to take care of, rather than risking having interceptors with no enemy
fighters to worry about.

If the 120 budget isn't flexible, I'd probably substitute attack fighters for
the torpedo bombers. Nowhere near the striking efficiency but it's not just
awful. Maybe one interceptor but more often not.

E

[quoted original message omitted]

I'm impressed with the tendency to steer away from interceptors; not arguing,
just hadn't given it enough thought, as I am usually playing vanilla fighters.

To expand the comments, I'd assume you'd vary a bit depending on opponent,
even if you didn't know that opponent's fleet roster. My Konstantin is very
nervous about FSE SM's.

Do others have thoughts about how you might change this depending on your own
fleet make up?

The_Beast

Gregory Wong wrote on 01/27/2006 04:00:26 PM:

> Let's say you have the ESU Konstanin carrier with 6 available

I find it interesting that no one has suggested purchasing
heavy fighters, fast fighters, or long-range fighters.
Are they not worth the extra cost? I guess fighters tend to go pop before they
exhaust their endurance. And being a fast fighter doesn't help you in a dog
fight. And heavies are just too expensive?

--Greg

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'm about the only
one that suggested anything. Experience shows the mix I put up is stable and
good bang for your buck. The others are good specialty fighters when used
right can win the day. But to account for die rolls, standards and
intercepters with a torp flite makes for the best basic load.:)

> Gregory Wong <sax@soundingrocket.com> wrote:
I find it interesting that no one has suggested purchasing
heavy fighters, fast fighters, or long-range fighters.
Are they not worth the extra cost? I guess fighters tend to go pop before they
exhaust their endurance. And being a fast fighter doesn't help you in a dog
fight. And heavies are just too expensive?

--Greg

Within the requirements of 6 squadrons of fighters for 120 points there isn't
much room for upgrades beyond the effective mix that has already been
suggested.

If you are playing the ships from the rulebook then they tend to have a pretty
small PDS suite so there isn't much to be gained from being heavy.

I have seen it done with a light cruiser mounted one squadron of heavy fast
torpedo bombers. They would reach out 48 inches and make their attack run
against the enemy ship then whip back to the carrier for the refuel rearm.

I built a carrier with 4 similar squadrons and they killed a 150 mass
battleship in one pass.

If playing against KraVak or SV opponents with access to scatter pack type
weapons then the heavy upgrade is well worthwhile.

If you are worried about salvo missiles then you might do better having
2-3
squadrons of interceptors and the rest torpedo bombers. 4 squadrons of torpedo
bombers will ruin an enemy capital ships day while the interceptors in escort
will supplement your point defence while your beams do the damage.

John

[quoted original message omitted]

This depends on your house rules. Until the Fleet Books came out my group used
combined types freely, although we eventually decided to house rule ban heavy
interceptors because they were a little too good at annihilating everything
else. The fact that the fleet books list the fighter types as seperate,
apparently atomic types convinced us to just stop combining the types
altogether. However, there's nothing saying you can't just keep using that as
part of your house rules.

Fast AND heavy AND torpedo seems exorbitantly expensive to me, even so.
Nevertheless, I suppose if you can afford it, there's no reason not to. I
could certainly visualize a starfaring empire that considers fighter strength
a high enough priority being willing to make sure that their bombing arm of
the carrier forces is as effective as possible, if they've got the technology
and resources to achieve it on any real scale. That's the other part of it.
The PSB for it definitely would have to acknowledge
that combined super-fighters are definitely a much higher tech item than
a regular one with just one area of specialization, so... whatever.:P

E

[quoted original message omitted]