Long range weaponry

Long range combat ability is a classic superiority tactic in the space combat
literary genre. In terrestrial naval warfare as well there has been a quest
for a ship which could outrange and thus outfight her opponents.

Only 4 weapon systems in Full Thrust can affect targets at greater than 36".
Nova Cannon, AA Beams, Fighters and Missiles.

Being limited to Capital ships, a ship centered around Nova Cannon and AA
Beams will have a hard time maintaining their range advantage. AA Beams are
further limited by how little damage they do against shielded targets.

Consider, an AA Beam firing 36 times against level 3 shields will do ~12
points at the range it has the most advantage. As a ratio of total damage done
by a weapon system compared to the mass it takes up, this is pretty dismal.
And at closer range, the more frequent burnout means the AA beam will have a
lower total potential damage, even if it gets there quicker. AA Beams are best
used to kill scouts before they can gather information, not as a broadside
weapon vs other Capital Ships.

The Nova Cannon is not going to win battles with its range alone because: 1)
You can't keep the range open when firing a forward arc weapon 2) Targets at
its ultimate range can easily dodge, (except for fixed fortifications and mine
fields. There is no better weapon for taking on something which can't move!)
3) It isn't very accurate. Face it, by the time you can line up a shot,
everybody is going to be moving at way greater than 3x Thrust, which means
they can dodge the area of effect quite easily. The Nova Cannon is great for
surprise, or to finish off a ship with low thrust, or when employed en mass,
but it isn't great for a classic range duel.

Now to missiles: People have very different opinions about how effective
missiles can be. I imagine the biggest criterion for how effective they are is
whether you are using Vector Thrust rules or not. Given enough time to
accelerate, even a Thrust 2 ship can dodge 1/3 of the
missiles targetting them. I suspect the effectiveness of *DAF and C Beams
versus missiles is based on the assumption that only about a third of the
missiles launched ever get a lock on. Otherwise, how to justify that the
defense likely to stop 1 missile masses 3 times as much as the missile?

Under Vector Thrust, a 2 Thrust ship is dead meat if it is anywhere within 50"
or so. Under Full Thrust and 8 Thrust ship moving at 30" can dodge completely
out of the range of a missile. Under Vector Thrust, if the terminus of
movement of the ship without maneuvering is in reach of the missile, the
entire dodge field of that ship is likely to be within reach of that missile.

Some people have rules for faster, longer endurance missiles. Let me point out
that there is a great difference between hitting extreme scanner range in
three turns and hitting it in two. Let me also point out that if the sneaky
missile launcher chooses to, he can have those fast missiles move only 18",
and then totally surprise an enemy who was accelerating so that the missiles
would overshoot on their third turn. The possibility of "Over the Horizon"
shots, or firing from beyond scanner range of the target could become a
legitemate fleet tactic.

Under some movements systems, fighters can also be used for "Over the Horizon"
shots. Under most of these systems they are a lot better at it than missiles,
having superior maneuverability and more endurance. If you allow fighters to
act as Thrust 12 ships, may I suggest that when they do so they write orders
during the ship phase? Only if they have a speed of 12 (or 18) or less should
they be able to wait until all ships have moved to move.

Unlike missiles, fighter with Thrust 18 or Thrust 12 will eventually find
their targets. The beauty of it is that except for Area Effect weapons, the
fighters will be able to target anyone who can target them. Ships can out turn
missiles but they can't outturn fighters.

Using the Fighter Thrust rules, all that matters is if there is enough
destructive power in your fighter squadrons to kill more than their Carrier's
weight before they run out of endurance.

Versus Level-3 Shields, and 3 *DAF, 18 Mass of
Attack fighters will do:
16*1/3 14*1/3 + 12*1/3  Assume we lose a squadron
attack somewhere due to morale and fudge the numbers downward. Somewhere under
14 points. Obviously attack fighters alone can't do "Over the Horizon" tactics
versus Dreadnoughts.

Versus 3 *PADF 18 Mass of Torpedo Fighters will
do 16*2/3*3.5 or 37 1/3 damage, or just about
double the Carriers damage taking capacity.

If you are trying to pull a Taranto or Pearl Harbor, you can do it under
Fighter Vector Thrust rules.

A Battle of Midway is more likely as the defender of a system is likely to
have a sensor network to give early warning and location information to a
stealthed Carrier group, while an enemy attack Carrier group coming out of FTL
and then using high Thrust is comparatively UNstealthy.

What kind of tactics would help the actual attack work better?

One might have the first wave be Fast Heavy Interceptors who dogfight any
enemy fighters. Having some Scouting Fighter along who make sure you don't
waste 18 torpedos on a Capital Ship Weasel might be a good idea as well. This
implies a partial defense: Have Area ECM around your Capital Ships, with a
network of scouts outside the ECM range.

Have a mixture of Attack and Torpedo fighters following up. Attack fighters go
after Cruiser and smaller, Torpedo fighters go after Capital ships. Not only
do Torpedo fighters do more damage overall than Attack fighters vs Shielded
targets, they spend less time being targeted by *DAF systems.

Now, after building up the effectiveness of the Torpedo fighter as the
ultimate weapon, I'd like to point out that for the same mass you get the
Ultimate Defense, a Heavy Interceptor Squadron. It is more effective than 2
ADAF and may keep the enemy squadron from even attempting to attack. If you
can fly Interceptor squadrons in close formation with your heavies no matter
what your velocity, you are pretty much immunized from the Over the Horizon
fighter tactic.

Now, it is oversimplifying to say that a Carrier can kill twice its tonnage
from ridiculous range. For one thing, there is the expense of protecting the
Carrier, and the expense of scouting out the enemy fleet. These scout forces
could easily double the cost of the strike force. An Over the Horizon Carrier
strike probably couldn't reliably kill an equal point opponent for various
reasons:

A lot of torpedos will be wasted. In order to avoid excessive PDAF casualties,
several torpedo groups will attack a single Capital ship. I figure if PDAF can
target the fighters, the fighters have already committed an endurance point.
So if two torpedo groups turn a Battlecruiser into vapor, the other two
torpedo groups still use up their torpedos.
And sometimes a Capital ship decoy will receive 30+
points of damage by mistake. Even so, it can be cheaper to rearm the torpedo
fighters than for the opponent to buy another decoy.

What you need is decoys which explode and do damage to everything within 6"!

My point, and I do have one, is that seemingly minor changes in the rules and
scenerios will have great effects on the effectiveness of certain weapons
mixes.

WIth Vector Thrust for all ships and fighters, as well as FTL limits >200"
from planets, I'd expect to see Over the Horizon fighter attacks be a major
concern for fleet designers. Similarly, with boosted endurance for missiles
I'd expect to see them even
more as fire-and-run-away weapons.

This allows a new type of scenario. Instead of dealing with the Grand Meeting
engagement you have the scout mission. I have 200 points in scouts, you have
2000 worth of Capital ships with 800 points in screen. I get total victory if
get scanner readings on at least 1000 points of ships and stay within scanner
range of them for the 5 turns it takes the fighter waves to arrive.