> > Yeah... that's basically it. What wartime operation is a skirmisher
> > going to be able to fulfill?
> In _your_ game universe, possible very little. In other, some might
going to
> be defending each listening post and scout squadron?
You're making something of a straw man argument here.
There is a role that can be filled by skirmishers: harassment. You can try to
cut off supply lines, you can interfere with logistical supports for a war
effort... and that's basically it. If you can't bring any meat and potatoes to
the table to back it up, that is not going to win any sort of war by itself.
(See also the Atlantic naval theatre of either World
War.)
That's not to say that skirmishers do not have their LIMITED role in a larger
war effort. It might interest you to know that, at the low mass range of their
forces, the entity that operates the dreadplanet has its own series of
skirmish vessels, called Shrikes. There's three main classes that get used:
1. War Shrike. The original archetype, is a large escort ranged ship, thrust
6, cloaking device, 3 pulse torpedoes.
2. Needle Shrike. Slightly smaller adaptation of the War Shrike, thrust 6,
cloaking device, 8 (I think) needle beams.
3. Armor Shrike. Does by simple speed and resilience (it's mass 94 and stiffly
hulled and armored) what the smaller Shrikes do by stealth. Thrust 6, 10 (I
think) needle beams.
All of these could be classed as "skirmishers". All of them are fairly
inexpensive vessels. Needle and Armor Shrikes are the critical-hit guys
that either outflank or decloak behind enemy fleets in large scale fleet
actions and take out a few vital systems to help a larger fleet of ships bring
down the opposition. War Shrikes are far less useful in large scale actions
(they get chopped to ribbons before they can do much) but for smaller
operations they still have their place.
In between the Shrikes and the Dreadplanet Roberts, they have larger cloaking
torpedo cruisers, faster battledreadnoughts for patrol, and multi-role
superdreadnoughts for the front lines (which, yes, will have Shrike escorts).
And no, overstocking your PDS is a _suicidal_ countermeasure. As you
can see, they have both their own ships that would shred such tactics, as well
as numerous slave-allies whose ship-to-ship tactics are far more focused
than their own. If you overstocked your PDS against the master race, they'd
thank you for making it easy and let their slaves draw straws to choose which
one gets to hand your butt to you. (Read: it's been tried.)
> Another note. You talk about defending hard targets here, but the
Hard to
> have a coherent/consistent line of discussion or debate when the rules
Uhhhh... this isn't, itself, very coherent. Maybe we do happen to represent
a number of our battle-line combats in open space. However, the place
where what you're saying breaks down here is, we're not doing so to a degree
that we're losing sight of the assumed fact that, somewhere out there, there
_are_
hard targets that these ships are expected to defend. If they can't defend
them, they wouldn't be built in the first place.
> IMO, cloaking devices in this context (what I understand of your
That's what orbital and planetary defenses with real firepower are for. If
anything decloaks at close range to a planet, it's probably not going to
survive. Cloak-capable ships are _expensive_. They give up a mild
advantage to uncloaked ones on mass of weapons and a very dramatic advantage
to them on cost of delivering those weapons in a ship to the front. (As much
as 25%.) It's true that they're very dangerous if you get caught out of
position with them. It's also true that you can't just use them up like
popcorn by firing at planets instead of their defenses due to their cost.
[quoted original message omitted]
> >You're making something of a straw man argument here.
> >There is a role that can be filled by skirmishers: harassment. You
> See the Pacific campaign, starring US subs vs Japanese shipping.
Ooooooo, mommy mommy, I just caught myself a REALLY BIG FISH!:>
Okay, here's the difference between the Atlantic and the Pacific, in simple
terms.
The German U-Boat scare, while formidable in the early stages of the
war, was all but useless by the end phases. Why? Because they had no other
recourse
other than the U-Boats... which meant that once the Allies figured out
how to sink them effectively, they were horribly ineffective. Suggestion for a
sobering thought: get yourself a copy of "Das Boot" and read that opening text
of the movie good and hard, stating how many sailors aboard German
U-boats
actually survived the war. (Hint: about 25% of them.)
In the Pacific, on the other hand, the United States had somewhere between
mild and overwhelming surface fleet superiority at just about all times after
June of 1942. The Japanese didn't have the luxury of focusing on antisub
warfare
because, increasingly, the greatest threat to them was land- and
naval-based
aircraft. By the time we actually got around to Hiroshima, the outcome of the
war was already a foregone conclusion: we had dropped somewhere around a
million tons of bombs on the Japanese home islands. By comparison, the
A-bomb
that hit Hiroshima was the equivalent of only twenty thousand tons of those
bombs or so. The submarines had their role, but their role was simply a small
one behind a formidable force of aircraft carriers. Thus, the nickname for the
Navy's submarine fleet during the war: the "Silent Service".
In simple terms: the Germans relied solely upon skirmish tactics and their
navy lasted about as long as it took to answer them, while the United States
had a far more powerful weapon at their disposal and thus had the luxury of
using skirmish tactics far more effectively, because they didn't leave the
Japanese the same luxury that the Germans left us.
My suggestion for the role of skirmishers is closer to how the United States
did it: a marginal one, behind a more powerful straight-up fleet.
Noam's suggestion is closer to how the Germans did it: rely on it exclusively.
> >And no, overstocking your PDS is a _suicidal_ countermeasure. As you
> You're changing the universe again.
Laserlight, this will make _four_ times that I've attempted to point out
on
this mailing list that I _do_ fly battleships at random in our
pseudo-campaign,
partially for the express purpose of annihilating those who get too zealous in
stocking their PDS by swapping on them unexpectedly. (And partially because I
like to just play a wide variety of tactics for the sheer enjoyment value
alone.) Don't accuse me of "changing the universe" because you weren't paying
attention the first three times.
> See the Pacific campaign, starring US subs vs Japanese
:>
> Okay, here's the difference between the Atlantic and the
What did the Allies sink them with--battleships? I'd say that
DD's, and even more so land-based air, would qualify as
skirmishers.
Even had it been BB's, though, the Allies didn't win just by figuring out how
to sink them, they won by committing the resource required. Resources that
would otherwise have gone to the ground war.
> You're changing the universe again.
Each time has been a different facet, I guess.
I suppose my view of a campaign includes a strong element of
economics; insofar as I can tell, the "pseudo-campaign" y'all
are running do not. That is, it sounds like you can pretty much design any
ship of any size you like and bring it to the table, without having to pay
attention to things like R&D costs, scale efficiency, logistics, getting the
fleet from point A to point B, and so forth. If you described more detail, I
didn't see it
(which is not to say you didn't send it--I get 100-200 messages
daily and I tend to skim).
This is _not_ to say that "bring 5000 points of any description
to the board" wouldn't be interesting--it would be a useful
venue to experiment with--I just don't think of that as a
campaign. Perhaps you have a URL with the rules where I could read them all in
one chunk and get the complete picture?
> That's what orbital and planetary defenses with real firepower are for.
If
> anything decloaks at close range to a planet, it's probably not going
In my campain the Dreadplanet would cost the entire tax base of 100 major star
systems for a year. With that kind of costs how do you buy such heavy defences
too?
> >> You're changing the universe again.
> Laserlight, this will make _four_ times that I've attempted to point
> Each time has been a different facet, I guess.
> I suppose my view of a campaign includes a strong element of
It's true that we don't tend to put a terrible amount of detail that we're
required to respect into our campaign, but there _are_ a few assumptions
involved to explain away why we play it the way we do.
> This is _not_ to say that "bring 5000 points of any description
Nope. One of these days I'll probably put something like that together,
explaining both the underlying assumptions of the game and the various
politics and economics of it. There's a fair amount of developed background,
much of which I've thought up and written out as part of the explanation for
fleet design doctrines, some of which I've pieced together and assumed from
my brother-in-law's explanations. I don't know how much of it people
_really_
want me posting to the list, though I would on request.:)
stilt
> Nope. One of these days I'll probably put something like that
Is why I suggested URL
Stilt:
> Yeah... that's basically it. What wartime operation is a
Me:
> In _your_ game universe, possible very little. In other,
Stilt:
> There is a role that can be filled by skirmishers: harassment.
..and..
> That's not to say that skirmishers do not have their LIMITED
Ah, there we go, you answered your own question (at least partially). Only
took a couple tries. :-) I also note convergence of design in the
Shrikes and Little Pricks.
Me:
> ...Are other (tweaked) dreadplanets going to escort
Stilt:
> You're making something of a straw man argument here.
Only in the eyes of your pseudo-campaign, where apparently
logistics and supply lines are below the resolution.
> And no, overstocking your PDS is a _suicidal_ countermeasure.
Wel, I wouldn't really know that, since I've only seen one design in detail
(dreadplanet), and read only basic descriptions of several other designs.
Don't forget, I only countered against one specific thing you posted in
detail. I'll have to take your word that you could pull something else out of
your hat that will exploit my gimmick's weakness just as well I could exploit
yours. I wasn't trying to come up with a balanced fleet against your galactic
empire.
> If you overstocked your PDS against the master race, they'd
Looks like we can both build strawmen. If I _were_ going up against your
master race, and had a budget of, what, 50,000-100,000 points? to make
into a bunch of fleets, I doubt all of them would be as PDS heavy as the
dreadplanet-killers. I'd probably invest heavily in cloaked, fast,
spyships so I could learn your deployments, then dispatch specific
counterfleets against specific threats (and launch first strikes into holes in
the defense net). This could be done even in a pseudo campaign by saying
Player A can
only bring 4000-4500 points to B's 5000, but A can choose his fleet
after seeing B's.
> Maybe we do happen to represent a number of our battle-line
Returning to the dreadplanet vs. skirmisher example, exactly where the hard
target is is essential to the game. If it's so far out that the combat is
effectively playing in deep space, (i.e. the dp can't make it to the planet
for assault in the time frame of the game), then skirmisher vs. DP (and other
force combinations) is a very viable strategy.
> That's what orbital and planetary defenses with real firepower are
If I've got orbital bases this powerful, I won't worry that skirmishers can't
stop every incoming battleship. The skirmishers can harrass on the way in, and
chip at the backside of the assault force while it slugs it out with planetary
defenses.
> Cloak-capable ships are _expensive_. They give up a mild advantage
I'd posit that in your pseudocampaign with its house rules (especially the
limiting maneuver space of a "soft" edge), the cloak advantage is
significantly higher.
> >> See the Pacific campaign, starring US subs vs Japanese shipping.
> >Ooooooo, mommy mommy, I just caught myself a REALLY BIG FISH! :>
> >Okay, here's the difference between the Atlantic and the Pacific, in
> >The German U-Boat scare, while formidable in the early stages of the
> What did the Allies sink them with--battleships? I'd say that
Land-based aircraft qualify as skirmishers? Uhhhh... let's see. The
Luftwaffe's role in sitting right beside the Wehrmacht in cutting through just
about every army in Europe until Hitler squandered away the main
assault force in southern Russia comes to mind. Land-based aircraft,
acting completely on their own, sunk the battleships Tirpitz, Prince of Wales,
and the battlecruiser Repulse, and pretty much sent civilization in both
Germany and Japan right back to the stone age. 90% of Tokyo was on fire one
night out of every three, and I won't even go into Hiroshima.
No... I don't think aircraft of any sort would qualify as skirmishers in the
sense I'm thinking, i.e. where you don't confront much of anything head on and
just hit and flee. Fighters of whatever sort (whether in real life or
in FT) are very head-on war materials.
> Even had it been BB's, though, the Allies didn't win just by
No... it pretty much _was_ by just figuring out how to sink them.
Destroyer escorts were so cheap that, even before entering the war, the United
States gave away a hundred of the suckers to Britain basically for free. The
Soviets had the ground war pretty much completely under control from the
moment Hitler personally blundered away the main German assault force at
Stalingrad, even
though the U-boat threat would not come under real control for another
year and a half and all we were doing to help the Soviets fight the Germans
was to send supplies.
In 1942, the German submarine menace was all over the Atlantic, and was
really, really nasty right off the eastern seaboard. When the United States
finally
began going through U-boats like popcorn, it was because we simply
started listening to the British in how to deal with them. We started blacking
out
the cities on the east coast so that U-boat commanders wouldn't have
these
beautiful silhouettes of merchant ships against well-lit backdrops to
shoot at like they were ducks in a circus game. We started convoying ships
together to make it easier for destroyers to protect them. We started
communicating better
when U-boats were sighted. The one major construction change we made
was in the merchant marine, with the "Liberty ship" design, the only real
claim to fame of which was that we could build the things in about three days
to quickly replace shipping sunk by submarines. And somewhere in the midst of
this, we somehow found the resources left aside while we were sending three
out of every
four German U-boat sailors to the bottom of the Atlantic to ALSO build
the army that brought the war in Europe to a close within a year of landing
it, the navy that pushed the Japanese clear back to the coast of China, AND
the air force that reduced every major German and Japanese city to so much
rubble.
> Stiltman wrote:
This thread has been going on for quite a while. As far as I can tell,
Stiltman has a tendency to change the terms of reference just as it suits him.
We were discussing space 'naval' warfare, which shifted to wet 'naval'
warfare, specifically the U-boat war, in search of analogies for events
in fullthrust. In terms of naval warfare, which includes battleships and
carriers, I would agree that destroyers, as well as U-boats and the
land-based air used in the battle of the Atlantic (long-range recce
planes) would qualify as skirmisher as stiltmans described them before in FT
terms.. The use of aircraft in land warfare and in naval warfare proper (for
sinking
ships) were not relevant to the discusisons of the U-boat battle of the
Atlantic
> No... I don't think aircraft of any sort would qualify as skirmishers
What do you call 'confront head on'? In the tone you use, this sounds like a
manly duel, standing toe to toe. No airplane can do that. They all have to
move in, hit and move out, which I had understood formerly to be your
definition of a skirmisher. It just depends on the kind of 'hit' it deal out
in whether you have the effect of a Spitfire or a B-52.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> No... I don't think aircraft of any sort would qualify as
What sense are you thinking, then? "Skirmishers", to my mind, connotes
relatively lightly armed units, faster than the opposing units, which depend
for survival on avoiding rather than absorbing damage.
See also Archer Jones' book, the title IIRC is The Art of War in the Western
World.
> Even had it been BB's, though, the Allies didn't win just by
(Snip description of North Atlantic campaign). Sorry, that turns out not to be
the case. Figuring it out was important, of course, but without the materiel,
there would have been nothing to apply the knowledge with. The U boats didn't
start sinking just because some scientist said "Hey, here's a blueprint for a
device I call ASDIC."
If the US had 100 DDE's to give in exchange for base leases, that doesn't mean
they were free to the US, it just means we had
enough industrial capacity to build them. One could argue that
the defeat of the U boat campaign in the Atlantic, and the success of the sub
campaign in the Pacific, was in both cases simply a victory of the larger
industrial capacity over the
smaller. Along the lines of the Sherman vs Panther matchup--if
a the US loses 3 Shermans for each Panther the Germans lose, who
wins? Answer--the US--because they build at a rate of 5 to 1.
In reply to stiltman@teleport.com:
A few days ago, you claimed that your (or your opponent's) fleets
regularly brought 100+ PDSs to the battles so your massed fighter
swarms weren't abusive in spite of the lack of fighter morale etc.,
since 100+ PDSs was enough to deal with it. (BTW, if you don't keep
track of individual squadrons, how do you keep track of fighter
endurance - which is the second major limiting factor for fighters?)
Some days before that, you claimed that they didn't bring enough PDS to have a
chance against your massed fighters.
Now you write:
> And no, overstocking your PDS is a _suicidal_ countermeasure.
so you're back to your initial position.
You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
> In reply to stiltman@teleport.com:
> A few days ago, you claimed that your (or your opponent's) fleets
The average is probably about 60-80. I think I've been pretty clear
about that. Heck, I've twice given you an exact count of ships and numbers of
scatterguns for a battleship-oriented force (90 scatterguns on five
ships
in my K'V based custom force, 60 PDS on three screen-2 cloak-capable
battleships with ADFC in one of my more common groups). I think the record for
PDS numbers in our games was when I flew two dreadstars, one of which
had 84 PDS and the other had 30-something, neither of which was equipped
with ADFC because each ship was designed to fend for itself.
Keeping track of fighter endurance isn't terribly hard for me because there
are few situations where I will have any number of fighters less than the sum
total that I'm flying actually fire at once. If there's a situation where
fewer have to fire because some are out of position (some of them screening
flankers or ships under missile attack, for instance) I usually will not have
the extras fire the extra shot that they spared at all because I don't want to
expose them to PDS fire in any smaller numbers than I have to.
> Some days before that, you claimed that they didn't bring enough PDS
No... they bring enough to have a chance. It's a matter of whether I can
cripple their area defense networks by other means before I commit the
fighters to a serious attack, whether or not I take the expense to bring heavy
fighters, whether I risk it on torpedoes or attack fighters (which I haven't
done since about one or two battles after FB1 came out), and a
few other things like just plain old-fashioned luck.
> Now you write:
> >And no, overstocking your PDS is a _suicidal_ countermeasure.
> so you're back to your initial position.
> You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
Take a hard look at what I'm talking about as compared to what Noam was
talking about that drew that comment from me.
I'm talking about ships that might dedicate about 10-20% of their total
weapons mass to point defense being played in my games. Maybe as high as 25%
if they're really stocking up. Noam, on the other hand, has suggested
everything from his BDN that had a single class 6 beam and 42 PDS/2 ADFC
(read: 48 mass on an offensive weapon and 46 mass on point defence) to a
destroyer with a single needle beam as its only offensive weapon and
5 PDS/ADFC (2 mass on offense, 7 on point defense).
I don't need to make up my mind, you need to pay attention to what I'm
calling "overstocking" as opposed to "reasonable". 60-80 PDS is
"reasonable" and, if you don't get your ADFC's needled can give you a serious
shot at
winning a game with a real carrier force. 240-340 is WAY into the realm
of "overstocking".
> stiltman@teleport.com wrote:
> The average is probably about 60-80. I think I've been pretty clear
No, you have not.
> Heck, I've twice given you an exact count of ships and numbers of
The Kra'Vak case, yes. You wrote that before you had tried the KV in battle,
so I don't count it as an example of your average designs or fleet mixes.
In the latter case, you stated "10-20 PDS on each heavy battleship",
without saying anything about a) how many battleships you were talking
about in the fleet or b) whether or not there were any area-defence
escorts around to support those ships.
> Keeping track of fighter endurance isn't terribly hard for me because
Not even when some but not all fighter groups use secondary movement? Or is
*all* secondary movement free in your house rules, and not just
the dodging of WGs/NCs? You haven't said.
> I'm talking about ships that might dedicate about 10-20% of their
46 mass for point defences are 27.6% of the total Mass of Noam's ships (TMF
174 each). Your "maximum" 25% would be 44 mass for point defences. Huge
difference, no?
Regards,
> One more comment to stiltman@teleport.com's post: wrote:
> The average is probably about 60-80. I think I've been pretty clear
....
> I'm talking about ships that might dedicate about 10-20% of their
Ah, 10-20% of the *weapons* mass. Missed that the first time I read the
post. That's some 60-140 Mass for PDS in the entire fleet, depending a
bit on how fast your ships are.
Curiously enough, it is pretty close to the percentages of their weapon
mass most FB1 ships use for PDS - the ships you said are very
under-equipped in the point defence department. This is part of the
reason why I find your earlier statements about your PDS levels contradictory.
Regards,
> Oerjan wrote:
> Ah, 10-20% of the *weapons* mass. Missed that the first time I read
> Curiously enough, it is pretty close to the percentages of their
10% was a guesstimate I made when I didn't have my notebook of designs in
front of me. Pulling it open, I'm seeing from 20-25% in most of the
ship designs that are built with the assumption that they won't have carrier
support, as opposed to around 5-9% on the FB1 ships.
For instance, the Valley Forge class NAC SDN has four point defenses at 190
mass. A ship in our games that expected to have light or no carrier
support would have at _least_ ten at that size, possibly closer to 12 or
even 15.
> I wrote:
Small addendum... while they'd have far more than the 4 the FB1 ships
typically have, they'd also have far _less_ than the 42 Noam's
suggesting
on his ship... that might be useful against carriers, but it's use_less_
against battleships, and in our games you have to be able to deal with both.
Too much is assumed to be at stake to allow you to just bug out if you guess
wrong and leave an uncontested hole in the battle lines.
Stilt:
> Small addendum... while they'd have far more than the 4 the FB1 ships
While I'd be willing to guess that some might win more often than loose, I
have yet to see it proved that any of the BC designs you've described can
easily whip the Beam-6 fleet. The superior thrust of the "strike" BC's
makes it a running game, but if the beam 6 forces can keep the distance open
long enough, it's anyone's game. Question is how long is long enough. I also
wouldn't assume that a Beam-6 sniping fleet would ever be a primary
_defense_ fleet.
Remember - again - that the Beam 6 fleet with that PDS load was designed
_specifically_ to take out your origninal dreadplanet design. I also
said
(more than once) that just like your original DP, the Beam-6 fleet would
have to be tweaked to meet other challenges. Not exactly fair to hold me to
one design while you bring out your entire fleet binder.
As an aside, I'm very curious how Oerjan caught his long range attackers with
his slower force.
> stiltman@teleport.com wrote:
> Curiously enough, it is pretty close to the percentages of their
The average amount of PDSs+ADFCs (you counted the ADFCs into the "mass
used for point defences" on Noam's design, so I do the same here) on the FB1
ships is 16.3% of the weapon mass if "weapon mass" means
PDS+ADFC+FC+weapons, or 13.9% if it means "everything which isn't hull
or engines". Right in the middle of your (now withdrawn) claim of
10-20% of the weapon mass used for point defences. The average Mass of
PDSs+ADFCs in a random 5000-point FB1 fleet is 57.
The NSL and ESU can go considerably higher if they use their respective
escort variant cruisers (Kronprinz Wilhelm/E and Beijing/BE), of
course.
If you play 5000-point battles (which you have said several times),
20-25% of your weapon mass (which you state above) should be some
120-140 Mass used for PDSs and ADFCs and not 60-80 as you previously
claimed. It seems that you actually were about as unclear as I percieved you
to be on this point.
Regards,
> stiltman@teleport.com wrote:
> >10% was a guesstimate I made when I didn't have my notebook of
> The average amount of PDSs+ADFCs (you counted the ADFCs into the "mass
You're probably looking at smaller ships than I am, then. The two ships I took
a quick look to arrive at that figure at were the NAC CVL and SDN designs. The
CVL has a total of 47 mass of fire control, fighter bays, and other weapons;
it has 4 PDS. The SDN has somewhere close to 60 mass of such systems and the
same number of PDS.
Ships of that size in my games, as I said in my previous post, would likely
have somewhere between 10 and 15 PDS and probably an ADFC if they didn't
expect to have pretty serious carrier support. The capital ships of just about
all of the FB1 powers have somewhere between the 4 PDS of these guys
and 6 PDS on the larger-sized ones; none of them have ADFC.
Would you like to delete all the specific comparisons again in order to claim
some more that I'm being hopelessly vague, or are you having fun responding to
posts where I say one thing by characterizing me as saying another? This is
three times in as many days here...
> Right in the middle of your (now withdrawn) claim of
This much is potentially true. But let's cut a bit deeper... a completely
random force might have 57 PDS, but they're likely to have about 20-30
ships
carrying that many, each of which is likely to have 1-3 PDS, most of
them are likely to take a threshold roll (or two or three) from any two to
four fighter groups attacking them at once, and overall they're likely to get
utterly shredded in very short order by concerted fighter attack.
If they're large enough to survive a small-scale fighter assault, the
ratio of PDS goes down dramatically.... if you composed a force entirely of
NAC SDN's for that cost you'd have a total of (roughly) seven ships, with
fourteen fighter groups and 28 total PDS. In a typical game under our rules,
that group would still last longer against a carrier force playing for keeps
than a completely random one anyway, because they'd put up more of a barrier
between their ships and my fighters with their own fighters than the random
fleet likely would with combined fighters and PDS. The fighters, in their own
way, can be considered an area defense network to slow mine down... which
would buy the SDN's a turn or two while I'm annihilating their fighters before
I'd have to divvy them up into large groups to take out about an SDN or two a
turn. Most likely (because of screens and how many fighters they'd bring down
with their own) they'd probably even keep a ship or two long enough to
engage my carrier force ship-to-ship, where they'd do relatively small
amounts of damage (my carriers usually have enough guns on them to outmuscle
such stragglers) before my fighters reloaded to finish the job. The random
force probably wouldn't get too many ships past the fighters at all, and what
ships
_did_ get through would probably be hopelessly outgunned by the carriers
themselves.
> If you play 5000-point battles (which you have said several times),
Oerjan... what you're doing here is ignoring specific numbers that I've
repeatedly given for actual PDS counts, in order to pick on the percentages
that I've repeatedly stated were mere estimates so that you can claim that I'm
being unclear or vague. What part of the specific numbers and examples that
I'm giving here are you failing (willfully or otherwise) to understand?
Read what I'm writing. Make sure you understand it _before_ you answer.
It
gets very frustrating when I'm repeatedly trying to clarify with specific
numbers and examples and you keep either deleting them or picking on the
estimates while ignoring the specifics.
> stiltman@teleport.com wrote:
[Stiltman writing that FB1 ships have 5-9% of their weapon mass for PD
snipped]
> The average amount of PDSs+ADFCs (you counted the ADFCs into >>the
means PDS+ADFC+FC+weapons, or 13.9% if it >>means "everything which
isn't hull or engines".
> You're probably looking at smaller ships than I am, then.
I'm looking at all the warships in FB1, including the ADFC-equipped
cruisers, though the percentages don't change much if you ignore the DDs and
smaller.
> Would you like to delete all the specific comparisons again in order
I'll be happy to go through the gzg-l archive for June and collect your
conflicting PDS statements as soon as Jerry gets it up on his web page. I'm
afraid I don't all of the early posts saved, including the first one where you
described the cause of your infamy in the local FT circles and the one where
you implied that 60 PDSs (which is what you
then thought that 20 Beijing/BE cruisers have) would be very
insufficient to handle 40+ fighter squadrons. (I fully agree that this
few PDSs are insufficient for that many fighters, particularly under your
rules, but that was one of the posts which gave me the impression
that you didn't use as few as 60-80 PDSs).
On the "clarity" subject:
[Stiltman, June 8th]
> The adjustment that's been made to facilitate this is that ths bulk of
This is the closest I can find to a clear statement concerning what Stiltman
on the 14th thought of as
> ... an exact count of ships and numbers [Kra'Vak description snipped]
The original post said "a good 10-20 PDS", nothing about how many
such ships there were, and nothing about their equipment apart from the PDSs
and the ADFC. You had described the Warbirds (which fit the above description)
in more detail, but when you did you indicated that they were one of your
"extreme" fleets designed to keep your opponents honest rather than an average
one.
Hm... one thing which strikes me while going through the old posts is that
when I ask about details on Stiltman's *opponents'* fleets, I seem to get
answers about *Stiltman's* fleets. Are they close enough to be the same thing,
or something like that?
[Stiltman, June 8th]
> If you don't want to worry about fighters, build a phalanx with about
FWIW, using Stiltman's house rules, if the enemy has 100 PDS (+ADFC)
but only level-1 or no screens vs 41 fighter squadrons (which may not
be *well* into the fourties, but at least into the fourties), on average at
least half the enemy fleet will be destroyed by the time
Stiltman runs out of fighters - assuming that Stiltman's 200-250 Mass
of ship-to-ship weapons haven't done anything up to that point of the
battle.
If all ships have level-2 screens, it's enough with 80 or more PDSs to
save half of your fleet from destruction by the fighters. With 100 PDSs
and lvl-2 screens the non-fighter force will only take about 25% losses
before the fighters are destroyed; Stiltman is probably less sensitive than I
about losses if the sudden disappearence of 25% of his fleet counts as "not
even going to significantly touch you" <shrug> I can't find any of Stiltman's
comments on screens right now, but IIRC he has implied that he finds them to
be of dubious value and often doesn't use them. Another thing to look up when
Jerry gets the June archives in place.
[Stiltman, June 7th]
> Yes, with the designs in FB1... however, IMHO, the designs in FB1 are
The FB1 ships in general have about 57 PDSs in a 5000-point fleet; more
if they bring their specific ADFC/PDS ships (only NSL and ESU). Another
statement giving the impression that Stiltman & co. use rather more PDS in
their fleets.
While digging for the PDS references, I also found this exchange (which isn't
directly related to PDS):
[Oerjan, June 6th]
> Firing plasma bolts at an ADFC phalanx means that 1) your own
[Stiltman, June 7th]
> Positioning fighters together with plasma bolts so that both can
[Oerjan, June 7th]
> And where exactly do you expect a high-thrust (or
So far, so good. But then:
[Stiltman, June 8th]
> If you're flying that fast, I won't care about predicting. Your
[Oerjan, June 8th]
> That was news to me, actually. I was quite unaware that any
[Stiltman, June 9th]
> Um, I think it's _probably_ obvious that I was referring to the
As can be seen above, this part of the discussion began with combined
PB/fighter attacks on an ADFC phalanx. Since Kra'Vak don't have ADFC it
seems quite clear, at least to me, that we were in fact *not* talking about
the Kra'Vak at the time. Stiltman, had you skimmed the previous posts since
you had lost track of the original context?
> > Right in the middle of your (now withdrawn) claim of
from any two >to four fighter groups attacking them at once, and overall
they're likely >to get utterly shredded in very short order by concerted
fighter attack.
Granted. A well-chosen FB1 force (one with Beijing/BEs or Kronprinz
Wilhelm/Es) will of course do a lot better than a completely random
one.
> If you play 5000-point battles (which you have said several times),
Incorrect. I am comparing some of your specific numbers ("5000-point
battles", "20-25% of weapon mass used for PDS") and some of my own
(quick calculations on how many PDSs you need in order to lose less than half
of your fleet to 41 fighter squadrons under your fighter
rules) against some of your other specific numbers ("on average 60-80
PDSs in the fleet"). They didn't match, so you seemed to be giving specific
examples about something else than you were talking about in the previous
posts.
Part of the problem is that you posted guesstimates about your own fleets (and
about your opponents' as well?), whereas I thought that you had checked the
numbers you were posting. This explains the
mis-matches.
Regards,
> stiltman@teleport.com wrote:
> >You're probably looking at smaller ships than I am, then.
> I'm looking at all the warships in FB1, including the ADFC-equipped
Well... as I've said... TWICE now in as many posts on this subject... I'm
looking at the capital ships. The percentages go considerably down in that
case.
> On the "clarity" subject:
> [Stiltman, June 8th]
> This is the closest I can find to a clear statement concerning what
> >... an exact count of ships and numbers [Kra'Vak description snipped]
> The original post said "a good 10-20 PDS", nothing about how many
They're not that extreme. They've got a pretty stiff point defense of their
own, backed up by Class 1 beams, and they're able to deal well with things
that flat out overstock on point defense in hopes of catching my carriers.
> Hm... one thing which strikes me while going through the old posts is
They're close. I know about my own fleets and how I'd deal with the problem
myself... but the simple fact remains that my opposition doesn't tend to fly
quite as many fighters as I do, and on the occasions when they have, it's
usually been against my own carrier forces, I usually win those battles by
some means or other, and as such they don't tend to try beating me at my own
game much. There's also the simple fact that I don't always have the
opportunity of closely studying my opponent's ships. I can predict what
they'll do, but I won't always know for sure.
I _believe_ the last couple of times my carriers took on my bro-in-laws'
battleships he had somewhere between 60 and 100 PDS. He did not have
significantly more than 100. He had enough that I threw some needle flankers
at him to take out some ADFC before I brought the fighters in to attack, and
they were a factor in the battle. But, in the end, I'm constrained to guess
what my opponent's going to do just as much as they are with me.:)
> [Stiltman, June 8th]
> FWIW, using Stiltman's house rules, if the enemy has 100 PDS (+ADFC)
> If all ships have level-2 screens, it's enough with 80 or more PDSs to
It is true that _I_ consider screens to be of dubious value, and
frequently don't use them. The ships I consider to be my most effective
designs have
armor and no screens. My brother-in-law does not share that philosophy.
If you have that much point defense, your ships will be able to force the
enemy's fighters to mass up to attack just one or two ships at a time, because
their best countermeasure to that much point defense is to try and reduce it
as quickly as possible, and the best way to do that is to make sure the
ship(s) you're firing at don't survive the first attack you throw at them. If
you dilute your fire more you'll just lose more fighters doing less damage to
any one ship and thus significantly reducing the chances you'll have of
actually reducing their defenses all that significantly.
If your ships are not completely immobile, they'll be able to reach the
carriers by the time the fighters have taken a couple or three shots. You'll
have enough ship-to-ship firepower that you'll then be able to respond
with enough damage that you can potentially hurt the carriers just as fast as
the fighters have been hurting you. If you're able to cloak while you're at
it,
you might well seize the advantage and do _more_ damage than the
carriers have been doing to you, since the fighters (probably) won't be able
to weaken your force before it gets to the carriers.
Yes, I'm probably not that sensitive to losing 25% of my force. I consider
that an acceptable sacrifice if it leaves me in position to destroy a lot more
of the other side's forces. I look to the long term in a given battle rather
than bugging out if I take early losses... if those early losses are a
sacrifice that puts me in position to win the battle in the end, I'll live
with them.:)
Small notes on my details: in most cases, I am typing this up as a side break
from work, where I don't have my FT books or design notebook in front of me to
check all of the details... so kindly don't crucify me if I have to
correct myself in those cases where I _do_ just plain screw up.