I would guess (just based off the FT/MT/FB and SG2 books) that the IF is
much like the LLAR in that they have their own territory, however small, but
primarly make their wealth by farming themselves out as mercenaries. Also, if
we want to build a similar structure to current activities then there will be
several groups that have small strike ships (raiders) that they gained by
their religious influence over the leaders (these same groups would have a
ragtag fleet from several sources).
For the SuperNational space fleet.....
I would base them off an attrition model for fighters. Every one of their
ships carry at least one group of fighters. They have no true carriers -
instead every ship is expected to fight in the line and carry some fighters
as well. Think Hydran from SFB in that they are all partial carriers - a
full fleet would have less direct firepower than most fleets, but able to
fields a good deal of fighters. Plus the loss of any one unit means that
enough other units can spread the surviving fighters so that none are lost for
want of space.
For direct firepower I would give them Beams - with maybe a
specialty
unit with a torp in the nose. On the defense I would go for Armor - with
no
units having screens. They should have armed/armored troopships so they
can transport their own units to the planet in question. Their only other
specialty ship would probably be an ortillary unit for suppressing the
natives. This gives them some unique flavor and yet they can still stand in
the
line - especially on the defense since they will be close to their own
lines of supply (for replacing those fighters).
Just some thoughts....
A fighter-centric power is a fine idea. I'd also considered a p-torp
heavy
power, a weak hull + 15% MASS in armour characteristic, or an abundant
use of submunitions or needle beams to make them interesting.
If they are fighter-centric, perhaps they don't usually use standard
fighter groups but specialize?
> Chip Dunning wrote:
I like this idea quite a bit! It woudl make for a very unique fleet, and some
interesting designs. Though at some point you'll have to draw the line, since
fighters are heavy suckers. (Don't they take up 9 mass for a group of six?)
One posible solution would be to give the smaller ships only one or two
fighters each. It's a bit of a departure from the standard rules, but I can't
think of any reason you wouldn't be able to do this. Perhaps some basic rules
for combining fighters would be in order though.
For ships that carry less than 6 fighters, just assign them to groups so that
each group carries a full flight of fighters. If the ships are together and
launch at the same time, place one full strength fighter counter in the middle
of them. If they're apart or one is destroyed, then you launch as many smaller
groups as you have to.
It would certainly make for some interesting tactics...
Tom
> I would base them off an attrition model for fighters.
Every one of their
> ships carry at least one group of fighters. They have no
This makes for very inefficient ships, though. My IF designs (which I posted a
day or two ago) assume the following: a) FTL drives are less available to the
IFN than to the major powers. Therefore many warships have no FTL drives, and
are hauled from system to system by tugs or tenders. Ships with FTL drives
tend to belong to the Sultanate rather
than the amirs (who can be somewhat independent-minded).
b) The IF accepts aid from anyone who wants to give it, but warships
principally come from the FSE. Therefore the IF ships often have lots of
missiles, particularly SMR's. c) The IF also have lots of fighters, I just
haven't designed a lot of carriers to haul them around (because I don't handle
fighters well). Many of them would be
planet-based.
d) I wanted to create vessels which require skirmishing
tactics and maneuver, rather than straight toe-to-toe
slugging. Therefore the IF ships usually have Thrust 6, and hulls which are
Weak or at most Average. e) IF commanders have to accept that they will
probably have to fight other IF ships at some point, as the amirs work just as
hard to be autonomous as the Sultan does to control them. The Federation is in
a permanent simmering civil
war--that's one reason why its aggressive leaders and eager
troops haven't swamped its neighbors (the other reason being the lack of FTL
drives). Therefore they tend to have lots of PDS and armor, and not much in
the way of screens.
> Laserlight wrote:
This breaks the fleet book. Non-FTL ships are much more powerful
on a BPV cost than FTL ships. I would guess this is why ALL the national
fleets are FTL in the fleet book.
> IF fighter fleet
Laserlight:
> IF tug/tender/SM fleet
Roger
> Non-FTL fleet breaks fleet book
Not if you have to pay for the tug/tender in your point cost and/or
bring it along into combat. One of the major tasks for the New Israel fleet
I've designed is dealing specifically with IF raiders. NI deep range groups
are tasked with killing IF ships equipped with FTL, be they warships or
freighters pressed into military service. An IF raiding group can be
neutralized for a significant time (if not permanently) if you kill its
tender - if they can signal for help, then the Sultan has to divert
other ships to rescue. If they can't, they'll have to surrender or die when
life support runs out.
What about a fleet using fighters and standoff (FT2) torpedoes? Keep those
precious ships away from harm.
From: Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us>
> What about a fleet using fighters and standoff (FT2)
torpedoes? Keep
> those precious ships away from harm.
By standoff torpedoes, do you mean missiles (or MT missiles)? My presumption
is that IF techs aren't up to
building reliable self-directing targetting systems for the
MT missiles--and the FSE mostly doesn't use them, which
restricts the available supply for the IF.
> A fighter-centric power is a fine idea. I'd also considered a p-torp
I would say one or the other, and the fighter idea sounds more interesting.
> If they are fighter-centric, perhaps they don't usually use standard
This could be interesting...
> Laserlight wrote:
> >> I would base them off an attrition model for fighters.
Not so sure about that, really. At least the hull boxes are useful -
contrary to, eg, the NAC doctrine which puts the heaviest protection on the
units least likely to be fired at <g>
Of course, egg-shell carriers are an even better way of bringing
fighters to the battle, putting fighter groups on CL and smaller means that
they won't have any other offensive armament and heavy enemy use of ADFC makes
fighters a liability <g>
Later,
> Roger Books wrote in reply to Laserlight wrote:
> > a) FTL drives are less available to the IFN than to the
Unless, of course, the non-FTL force has to pay for its tugs.
> Non-FTL ships are much more powerful on a BPV cost than FTL ships.
Roughly 10-15% more powerful per NPV, as long as you don't count the
cost fo the tugs. With enough "minimal" tugs (fragile hull, no
defences, no weapons, thrust-1) to carry the entire non-FTL fleet,
they're some 30% *less* powerful than standard FTL-equipped warships
with similar armaments/defences.
> I would guess this is why ALL the national fleets are FTL in the
No, the reason why the FB ships are all FTL is that they're supposed to
operate offensively as well as defensively. In order to avoid expensive
and vulnerable tugs, they use FTL-equipped warships.
Regards,
> Non-FTL ships are much more powerful on a BPV cost than
I'd be curious to see how you derived that, and what you'd
say is a reasonable "mark up" for non-FTL ships (like the
IF) for a one-off battle where jump drives make no
difference.
> Laserlight wrote:
> >> Non-FTL ships are much more powerful on a BPV cost than
You know, looking at the 70% figure after some hours of sleep, so would
I :-/
It looks as if I doubled the cost of the tug or suffered a major typo;
that minimalistic tug gives its non-FTL brood a bang roughly *90%* of
the same value of similarly-equipped FTL ships, not 70%.
As for how it is derived: The combat power of an FT ship is basically
proportional to sqrt(Weapon Mass * (Hull boxes + Armour boxes)) - ie,
classic attrition theory holds for FT. (Yes, I have validated it both against
simulations and the battles I've fought during the past year.)
This is modified in a variety of ways by screens, the hull/armour
ratio, exact weapon mixes, the number of FCs and most importantly (and
virtually impossible to calculate the impact of) the thrust rating,
which is why I assume FTL ships with similar equipment as the non-FTL
ones - this conveniently removes all these problems <g> Comparing the
ratios between combat power and cost (including the cost of the tug for
the non-FTL force) gives the values above.
> and what you'd say is a reasonable "mark up" for non-FTL ships (like
10-15% less points than the non-FTL force. Might seem too little for
one-shot missile boats, but then FTL-capable single-shot missile boats
often seem a bit overpowering as well :-/
Later,