The number of fighters should be inversely limited to the amount of ECM the
target has:
More ECM means it's harder to lock-on which limits the number of
attacking entities. So the more ECM, the fewer groups that should be allowed
to attack.
Note that under the current rules, there is no limit to the number of SM's
that can attack a single target, so it seems odd that there should be a limit
to the number of fighters that can attack. If unlimited SM's can attack then
they are using some sort of targeting system that doesn't interfere with other
SM's, and you should be able to use the same system for fighters.
Perhaps ships with no ECM can be attacked by unlimited
fighters/missiles. Ships with level 1 ECM can only be attacked by X
(say 12) and Ships with level 2 ECM can only be attacked by X/2 (say 6)
groups.
Alternatively, just abstract ECM and roll for "lock-on" for both
fighters and missiles. Only groups with a lock-on may attack. The
owner of the fighter/missiles designates groups to attack, then rolls to
see how many actually get a lock-on and close. Fighters can either be
done per squadron (whole squadron passes or doesn't) or be more like missiles
and have partial squadrons attack (similar to morale rules).
ECM could subtract from the lock-on roll to make the ship harder to
attack.
This would open up new defensive territory as you could add Area ECM systems
that generate electronic noise to inhibit attacks out to a certain range. The
disadvantage would be that your own attacks passing through that area would
also be degraded by the same amount. But since you can choose to activate or
deactivate it on a per turn basis, you could use it to screen against an enemy
alpha strike, turn it off for
your counter-strike, then start jamming again as you left the
battle-field.
The counter-measure would either be ECCM systems or advanced sensors.
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
So let's look over the possibilities of this plan.
If ECM is a fixed mass, then a large enough ship can make itself invulnerable
to fighters (if there is no ECCM or advanced sensors) simply by stocking a
high enough ECM power and enough PDS to shred whatever fits under the limit.
Even if it's scaled to the size of the ship, this just makes it a matter of
expense. We probably would have to make it relatively
inexpensive, or else the whole paper-rock-scissors bit gets uglier,
because if it's scaled to any significant amount of the ship's mass, then the
gap
between anti-fighter ECM packing ships and enemies that simply pack
direct-fire weapons will get that much more gross, which ultimately
leads us to the same mess we have now, where you take a wild guess whether or
not
your opponent is carrying fighters or not in blind one-off games. If
ECM is expensive enough that the penalty for guessing wrong is large, then
this is not an improvement. However, if it's inexpensive enough we're
essentially
rendering fighter-based fleets that don't carry a countermeasure
useless.
Conversely, if advanced sensors or ECCM is in the game with it, then what
kind of idiot is going to pack fighters and/or missiles without also
packing advanced sensors or ECCM? Unless you're trying to simulate different
technology levels by doing this, there's very little point to not bringing it
for a competitive game. If you're after a scenario design, then sure, it'll be
fine, except that the game as it stands now works just fine for
someone who wants to build a pre-set scenario. Similarly, you'd
probably have to make ECCM similarly inexpensive, or at least not much more
expensive than ECM, so that you don't balance things in favor of either side.
Depending on how well the ECCM works versus the ECM, you have one of two
outcomes if both players hedge their bets: either it's random as to who
gets the upper hand, or it becomes pointless as each cancels out the other and
you're back to square one.
Perhaps this is an oversimplified analysis, and I -can- see perhaps
-some-
element of ECM that could come with it. The problem will be making it actually
have a point to the game without being so complex that Full Thrust's simple,
generic nature is preserved. I don't know that I see a way to do it, and
limiting the number of fighters that can attack an
ECM-protected ship without ECCM of its own basically just forces people
to carry more gadgets on a ship in order to get the same results we've already
got now.
Eric/Stilt
[quoted original message omitted]
> [snip]
Well, SMs are not so concerned about fratricide (it only reduces the overall
effectiveness, rather than kills craft and pilots...), plus they don't have to
zoom out the other side after their attack run! A lot depends on whether you
are considering the fighters as
standing-off and launching ordnance at the target ship, or doing a
surface-skimming close pass with guns that we so often see on TV and
in the movies.....?
Fighters aren't worried about fratricide either. If they are carrying large
nuclear warheads, then they are obviously using some sort of
short-ranged missile to deliver them, otherwise they would be immolated
in the radiation wave from their own warheads. If they are using some
sort of laser/beam weapon then those weapons are not omni-directional
and shouldn't have much of an effect on craft next to or behind them. Because
of the volume of space available, planning attack runs that don't overlap is
not the limiting factor.
> From a coordination point of view, with a volume of space 523 cubic
Here is the basis for that conclusion:
Assuming that you can fire out to 5000 m, the critical collision area for
fighters is within the 5km sphere previously stated. Assuming a large fighter
has a frontal area of 707 meters square (15m radius circle), each fighter
carves out a max volume of 0.007 cubic km on an attack run (707 meters squared
x 10 km). So a squadron of 6 will carve out a maximum volume approximately
0.042 cubic km's. Absolute ideal
situation, non-crossing flights paths based on volume is 523 km3 divided
by 0.042 km3/squadron = 12452 squadron paths.
If you increase attack distance to 10 km's the volume of space increases to
4188 km3 (10km radius sphere) with each ship taking up 0.014 km3 on an attack
run, this generates nearly 50000 volume independent runs for squadrons.
If you allow that flight paths can cross in time and are not volume exclusive,
the then number jumps to something quite a bit higher depending on your timing
allowances.
Even allowing for the volume of the target craft (probably not more than a few
cubic km's even for a large carrier (Star Destroyers excepted as they are
ships with km's of length and huge volume) and perhaps a
"no-survival zone" of one km from the target that no fighter could
survive, you still have several thousand possible choices of flight paths that
are guaranteed to not cross each other.
In addition, this does not include the idea of longer range stand-off
weapons that allow a fighter to just barely get into range and doesn't
acutally have to enter the critical 5km sphere. There are many more possible
flight paths that simply intersect as a tangent to the critical sphere that
allows for the firing of weapons without having to enter.
A note that a 5km is well within range of modern guns that have to deal
with gravity and air-resistance. I would hope that in the fuure, the
technology of weapons would be greater in space than their current
terran-bound ancestors.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the real issue is what flavor are you trying to capture:
WWI aircraft - Planes are roughly equal but surprise and individual
skill mattered
WWII aircraft - planes vary widely in quality, speed and armnament, but
individual skill still matters
Post-korea to modern - planes are roughly similar in physical qualities,
but technology matters most. Individual pilot skill is secondary to the use of
technology. (i.e. it's not how well you can pilot the plane, but
use your radar to get a lock-on for a kill).
Note that Battle Star Galactica follows the WWI model with fighters on both
sides being roughly equivalent, but he skill of a few individual pilots can
turn the tide of a battle. Star Wars and B5 follow the WWII
model where certain fighters are heavily out-classed in technology, but
personal skill can still make a difference in an overall battle. Honor
Harrington with the LAC's is probably the closest to following the modern
airwar model that I know of.
You will be hard pressed to find a single rule set that will fit all three
types of simulation and work well with all three.
--2 mega credits worth of comments,
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
> From a coordination point of view, with a volume of space 523 cubic
<< Some excellent figuring deleted>>
> Even allowing for the volume of the target craft (probably not more
Of course, there are several factors that you should consider that
*may*
reduce the fighter flight paths.
1) Velocity of the target. If we insist on applying "reality", then
the target velocity is non-trivial for figuring where the
fighters can attack from.
2) What volume of space do fighters need to maneuver in to make them so hard
to hit? Straight line flight paths with modern weapons systems would result in
vast numbers of dead fighters.
3) What kind of flight path does a fighter need to achieve a workable
firing solution? Do you need to be pointed right at the
target in order to fire those energy weapons? Do you have to fire repeated
shots, or just one energy blast? How long do you need to be in the danger zone
to get a good firing solution for your missiles?
4) How do PDS effect your ability to approach? PDS "effective" range may be
the same as fighter attack range, but it's entirely possible that shipboard
PDS are firing for quite some time as "area denial" before the fighters reach
effective range.
5) Does a fighter need to be closer than 5 km for any reason? Perhaps a
fighter doesn't carry enough power to fire effective shots at that range.
Maybe it needs to get closer to get a good targeting solution for "weak spots"
on the target. Maybe even fighter based missiles need to be close to find weak
spots.
I'm just saying that there are *lot's* of ways to PSB limitations on fighter
attacks, and the PSB's that say there should be no limits are every bit as
setting specific as PSB's that say there should. The bottom line should be
whether it makes for a fun and useful rule or not, not the justification for
it.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there should be several
options to help players simulate different settings.