Dean spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Jared wrote:
Have to agree with Dean. We've seen and concurred that, given the nature of
FT, it makes little sense to build escorts as a war machine (they may have
other reasons to exist such as scouting, showing the flag in peacetime etc)
and that they should be left behind when serious battle is joined. They pop
usually long before they are in range (under the theory I can wham a few
rounds at range into a cruiser or DN to minimal effect and no reduction of
enemy fire or I can totally eliminate two or three corvettes thus removing
them completely and forever from the firing equation). Leave your escorts and
corvettes at home. Unless you have things like sensor rules and handing on
targets because then having a screen of corvettes or escorts out to gain info
and acquire targets for the big hammer (your
caps and cruisers) makes a lot of sense - which may well how things
really end up operating. As it stands, heavier ships are a better buy.
> > How many
No, I just try to build fleets that are cruiser or cap ship heavy (I actually
like cruisers). If I'm forced to take DDs and FFs and the like, I have them
bring up the rear so that the big boys take the range pounding while we close
range which will hurt them a bit, but the popcorn (as we call the small
targets) survives to get off a shot before being evacuated to the dark cold of
space.
> This is what Schoon did with his fleet, and he won the tourney. Put
Or while the damaged biguns are slugging it out, and your opponent (who lead
with FFs and such) has much less FP dice left than you do, your FFs and DDs
make a difference.
> Am I off base or have others seen this same thing?
I concur and I know a few others around here do.
> I think that DDs and smaller should not be used as initial attack wave
As I said, if the game had some complex sensor rules and was more
like sub-hunting than WW1 line of battle manouvring, then having the
escorts and stuff out front to spot and acquire for the big ships longer
ranged guns makes lots of sense. As do having such ships in blockades and
other situations where you need to gaurd space. But in
a head-to-head fleet engagement, it seems their best disposition is
to the rear of a formation (or in the case of the smallest forces, maybe
gaurding the fleet train....).
/************************************************
> Have to agree with Dean. We've seen and concurred that, given the
I disagree; escorts are still effective at several tasks, such as escorting
(ADFC/PDS) and exploiting damaged ships or opennings after the first
pass. They have the thrust to keep out of the firing arcs of heavier weapons
after the big-slow-bruisers start turning like cows.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> I disagree; escorts are still effective at several tasks, such as
Which begs the question: When do you use escorts in a battle. Do you send them
out to engage the enemy while the heavies pound away from a distance, or do
you you hold them back to protect the capitals?
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
is this true under FB rules? i was under the impression ship size now made no
difference to thrust (if a ship has a certain mass fraction for drive, it has
a certain thrust, irrespective of absolute mass), and so you can have thrust 6
battleships if you want. thus, some of the advantages of escorts go away.
there are, however, some things that escorts are clearly best at. to wit,
escorting bigger ships (hence the name). they can deploy around your battle
squadron and provide air defence more effectively than bigger ships could, and
they can be used as sacrificial SM decoys. the reason for this
is that the defence weapons are quite short-ranged, and so by spreading
the ships out, you can cover more area. this is why escorts are used as
air-defence and especially asw ships today, and why the advent of
long-range air defence missiles such as standard/sm2 has seen bigger
air defence ships such as the Ticonderoga emerge. i think.
if you use sensor rules, they're good as scouts, too. they also have a
psychological edge against some players - people will ignore the little
ships as not being a threat, so they have a better chance of surviving.
and they do fare better against SMs, nova cannons and other area-effect
stuff.
Tom
> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Mark A. Siefert wrote:
Do you
> send them out to engage the enemy while the heavies pound away from a
depends what sort of escort they are. if they are defensive escorts, with
ADS/ADFC-PDS, some light guns and thrust to match capital ships, keep
them
back. if they are offensive escorts, with hard-hitting
short-range/one-shot firepower, like p-torps or submunition packs, and
high thrusts, send them out front. there are two different varieties of
escort; it would seem that multirole escorts are a bit pointless.
Tom
ps p-torps were short-ranged in ft2; i haven't seen torps in ft2.5, so i
assume they are the same
> They have the thrust to keep out of the firing arcs of heavier
True but if you're in a slugging match and he has 60% of his ship devoted to
weapons and armor, and you have only 40%, you had better have a bigger ship
than his, or not mind running away.
> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Laserlight wrote:
absolutely. however, the post i replied to suggested that escorts, ie
high-thrust ships, were able to evade the bigger ships' firepower well
enough that they became useful; if this is true of escorts, it would seem
to be true of high-thrust heavies.
a thrust 4 40-mass battleship (old-style FT2 mass) will beat a thrust 6
40-mass battleship in a slugging match because it has more mass for
weapons and defences; the whole point of having thrust 6 is to be able to stay
out of such a slugging match, and use maneuver to concentrate your forces,
evade enemy fire arcs, etc.
i think this was the idea behind battlecruisers; some people think BCs were
the biggest mistake ever, some people think they were a brilliant concept. i
don't think anyone ever worked out how to use them properly, though.
anyway, it's all part of the wonderful diversity of FT doctrines.
Tom
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> They have the thrust to keep out of the firing arcs of heavier weapons
Schoon, Just a note to ruin your peace of mind, Think: Lufbery circle, with
SDNs.
Bye for now,
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Have to agree with Dean. We've seen and concurred that, given the
I only agree to an extent: FT3's introduction of SMLs makes escorts that truly
ESCORT the Big Fellas absolutely essential. Otherwise you find 6 SMLs
converging on your Battleship, rather than a corvette. This technique is known
as "Banzi Jamming" and is used in modern naval
combat. The idea being that the 200+ Vampires inbound have a multitude
of targets to go for, rather than all coming in on the Carrier. It's not
popular with Frigate crews for some reason.
> > I think that DDs and smaller should not be used as initial attack
I partially agree with this one too. Given closing speeds of about 12-18
each for 2 fleets, it should be possible for thrust 6 escorts to take
one round of fire at 25"+, then be through the opposition, and ready to
> John Leary wrote:
> Just a note to ruin your peace of mind, Think: Lufbery circle,
Sean spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I disagree; escorts are still effective at several tasks, such as
Maybe its the scope of the games I play. Most are in the 25 - 60 ship
range, of which maybe 35% of the ships are DD or smaller. They tend to get
wiped out because they CAN be wiped out easily, and they tend to not survive
to escort other ships or exploit. After the first pass, there generally ARE no
escorts left on the board.
Tom.
/************************************************
> Which begs the question: When do you use escorts in a battle.
Do you
> send them out to engage the enemy while the heavies pound away from a
I would actually say "neither."
I would send the heavies in first with the escorts trailing behind, at
least 6-12 MU. As the enemy formation commits to their strategy and/or
your fire opens an avenue of attack, the accellerate them into the fray, where
they can make a difference before they "pop."
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Maybe its the scope of the games I play. Most are in the 25 - 60 ship