I am finally getting some actual Full Thrust games now, and at the last game a
bit of a debate arose over the role of certain ship classes.
Specificly, what kind of ship was appropriately armed with Pulse Torpedos.
I was of the opinion that an effective Pulse Torpedo ship has to be
survivable, to get off several shots and also very maneuverable because of its
limited arc of fire.
If you aren't using a very survivable ship you may as well use Submunitions,
which can deliver all their damage in one shot. Pulse torpedos are better than
submunitions only if they get off >3 or 4 shots. They also have an advantage
in a campaign game where they don't have to keep getting replaced.
So the ideal Pulse Torpedo ship is a fast heavy cruiser. With a more
reasonable cost of 4 Mass,
a heavy cruiser with Level-2 shields, 2 Pulse
Torpedos and 2 PDAF you've got a ship that can get that all important first
threshold check on a Capital ship.
A non-ftl heavy cruiser would be even more formidable
because it could have 3-shields and 3 torpedos and
thus be practically immune to beam weapons. Versus a beam equipped Battleship
it could take several rounds of beam fire while doing severe damage.
It would be a very odd class of ship. A middle sized ship which specializes in
attacking Capital ships. The closest analogue I was able to find were the
heavily armored coastal monitors which carried huge guns and stayed so close
to shore that battleships couldn't close with them.
It doesn't make sense to have an armament mix on a pulse torpedo Cruiser or
Escort because it can't spare the fire controls. Pairing off torpedo cruisers
with cruisers designed to swat escorts is a good idea, but mixing pulse
torpedos and beams on one cruiser isn't. If it loses a fire control a mixed
armament ship would have to decide whether to fire beams or pulse torpedos.
On that line of thought, a ship shouldn't have more different arcs of fire
than it has fire controls. "Well, what if you face an opponent from a
direction you don't mount weapons?" Why assume that you won't be able to
maneuver to get a good firing angle? If you build your ship so that you can't
ever use all your fire power you are being silly.
A Kra'Vak escort should have all its weapons in one arc, a cruiser, 2 arcs,
only a Capital ship would have all three arcs covered.
> I am finally getting some actual Full Thrust games
Remember one thing. When you have your unsurvivable ship with 1 shot
weapons, it becomes a non-threat when those weapons are gone. The
enemy can destroy it at his leasure when the weapons are all shot. By putting
a pulse torpedo on a small ship, you make the enemy shoot at it or pay the
consequences.
> So the ideal Pulse Torpedo ship is a fast heavy
Fast and heavy cruisers are very cool but are very expensive. If you want to
build them and try to out maneuver the enemy, they can be a great asset.
Unfortunatly, it really hurts when they get destroyed.
> A non-ftl heavy cruiser would be even more formidable
This I agree with. Most navies today do this. In games where Nova
Cannons/Wave Guns are used, this tactic is less effective because you
have to scatter to protect yourself from these area effect weapons.
> On that line of thought, a ship shouldn't have more
John Acar LLD, Inc.
> I am finally getting some actual Full Thrust games
No one ever worries about what type of ship I put a pulse torp in
'cause I rarely, if ever, hit with the bloody things. Even at point-
blank range. :-/ (hey, Aaron, *how* many P-torps did I fire in that
last game of ours, and *how* close were my ships to yours, and *how* many hit
on a '3' or better? '2' or better?)
M 'can't hit the broad side of a barn from 2 feet away' k
> ----------
You forgot to add, "With a shotgun" 8P
> Gil
> Specificly, what kind of ship was appropriately
Well, specifically with a p-torp; I might actually have a *chance*
with a shotgun! ;-)
Mk
[quoted original message omitted]
> Specificly, what kind of ship was appropriately
Anything fast and maneuvrable enough to keep them pointed towards the enemy.
[snip]
> If you aren't using a very survivable ship you may
But a pulse torp _can_ fire more than three or four shots. If a small
ship fires a large salvo of SMPs, I can safely ignore it for the rest of the
battle - it'll speed off anyway (unless it wants to suicide by ramming
or going into FTL), and I can concentrate on destroying the ships that are
able to hurt me. If, OTOH, it fires a PT, I want to make sure it doesn't fire
another one once it has turned around for the next attack.
> So the ideal Pulse Torpedo ship is a fast heavy
That's pretty expensive, that is. It is good - most of my Eldar fleet
consists of fast PT-armed cruisers - but only as long as it points
towards something heavily screened.
> With a more reasonable cost of 4 Mass,
Hm... make that "the all important second treshold check" <g> I rarely
damage very much on the first one, especially not screens :-(
> It would be a very odd class of ship. A middle sized
And also not very able to go anywhere. If you go with the FTL variety, well...
I'm no good at ship classes, but weren't there quite a few large destroyer or
light torpedo cruiser classes that would be quite similar to the FT torpedo
cruisers?
> The closest analogue I was able to find were the
Historical reflection: Considering the ranges of battleship guns, the only
reason I can think of why the battleships would _want_ to close would be
to find them when they were hiding...
> It doesn't make sense to have an armament mix on
Escorts no - you want some point defences on it, though - but I don't
agree with cruisers. It is very nice to have one or two light batteries to
your sides so you can at least shoot back a little at the lighter ships that
are pursuing you... and so you have something to shoot with all those turns
when your PT don't have a target. My most unsuccessful designs have been the
pure PT ones.
> Pairing off torpedo cruisers
Yes - except that the escort-swatter usually don't want to mix it with
true
capitals :-(
> but mixing pulse torpedos and beams on one cruiser
But prior to that it is very useful :-)
> On that line of thought, a ship shouldn't have more
...turrets... I assume you mean "arcs of fire" as in "weapons with the same
arcs of fire" rather than the FT definition, though.
> "Well, what if you face an opponent from a direction
If you have only one fire arc, it isn't that likely that you'll have
targets to shoot at all the time unless it is rather big - at least not
the targets you'd prefer to destroy (like the small SMP ships that just got
into your blind spot <g>). I tend to use turrets with overlapping fire arcs
(eg, one left/forward and one forward/right); in this way I have one
optimal arc (forward, usually) but I'm not entirely naked when attacked from
other directions too. (No, I don't use the battery masses published in FT; I
penalise extra arcs with extra mass.)
> If you build your ship so that you can't ever use
Which is why multi-arc weapons are so popular, of course. When all your
weapons are three-arc, you won't have any problems finding targets.
> A Kra'Vak escort should have all its weapons in one
Remember that the Scattergun is all-arc in MT. And, of course, that you
can
buy extra fire controls :-) A Kra'Vak doesn't have room for very many
weapons anyway :-/
Later,
> But a pulse torp _can_ fire more than three or four shots. If a small
Gee, I know which armament I'd prefer if my fleet commander has instructed me
to attack a Capital ship. I'd rather have a decent chance of doing some damage
before I'm swatted out of
the sky. If I am going to have "0-shield Target" painted on
me for every triple-arc A-Beam to swat, I'm going to be a
miserable captain! If I know that once I get my shot off I am going to be
ignored, I will feel much better about being ordered to attack Capital ships.
Seriously, using unshielded escorts to draw fire is silly. I would much rather
my opponent fire his beams at my ships
with level-3 screens than doing 4 times as much damage
hitting my escorts.
> > So the ideal Pulse Torpedo ship is a fast heavy
Actually, it isn't that expensive: Think about it, it cost the same for an 8
thrust cruiser that it does for a 4 Thrust Capital. A 2 thrust capital will
have a hard time getting out of the arc of your Pulse Torpedos, and may even
have difficulty getting a bead on you at all.
> > Pairing off torpedo cruisers
True, but the escort-swatter would also have good shields as
well. Their fleet role would be duel with less heavily shielded cruisers and
escorts. I ran a 3 shield Heavy Cruiser with
2 A Beams and ripped apart a Cruiser-Escort squadron built on
twice its points.
Oddly enough, a 36 Mass cruiser has the same threshold checks as a 48 Mass
Capital, until the 3rd check, and while the 36 Mass cruiser will be vapor, the
Capital won't have much fighting ability left either.
> > but mixing pulse torpedos and beams on one cruiser
I was rather unclear here. A ship with all FP and FS arc weapons doesn't have
a big problem. A cruiser with F, P and S arc weapons does have a problem.
Also, a ship which may have to commit a
fire control to needle beams, C-beams or pulse torpedos may not
be able to use all of their weapons even under optimal situations. If you
distribute your weapons in a way that you can't fire them all then your
opponent doesn't need to bother trying to get into your rear quarter to avoid
your fire power.
> > "Well, what if you face an opponent from a direction
My favorite way to destroy SMP ships is to hit them while they are out of
submunition range. I would rather have a really powerful arc that can destroy
at least some of them out of range than to try to get them once they are
already close enough to fire.
A lot depends on the initiative system you use. If the system will result in
the Capital ship getting a chance to fire before most of the submunitions
carriers around him, then diverse arcs makes sense.
> Michael wrote:
> Gee, I know which armament I'd prefer if my fleet commander has
What the skipper of the various attack boats are thinking won't be that
relevant to the ship designers, do you think? Ask Admiral of the Red Sonja
Hemphill <g>
> Seriously, using unshielded escorts to draw fire is silly.
OK. Keeping your escorts away from any enemy ship will accomplish this; if
not, well... shooting at the escorts will reduce your firepower faster than
shooting at your capitals, unless said escorts have already expended their
weaponry <shrug>
> > That's pretty expensive, that is. It is good - most of my Eldar
Sure. But a thrust 8 heavy cruiser costs 50% more than a thrust 4 heavy
cruiser, and three thrust 4 cruisers with turreted batteries will most
likely eat your two thrust 8 cruisers (one PT-armed and one
escort-swatter).
> A 2 thrust capital will have a hard time getting out of the arc of
Yes.
> and may even have difficulty getting a bead on you at all.
Difficulty getting a bead with its own PTs or other non-turret weaponry,
or if you manage to stay in its rear arc. Otherwise, no.
> > > Pairing off torpedo cruisers
:-) Beam-armed or PT-armed? :-)
> Oddly enough, a 36 Mass cruiser has the same threshold checks
It matters for the victory, though... and the 25-30% left on the capital
are a little more effective than the dead cruiser :-/
> > > but mixing pulse torpedos and beams on one cruiser
An additional comment: I tend to lose weapons faster than firecons (don't ask
me why, though), so even when the half the fircons are gone it's no big
problem. (The big holes in the ships, OTOH...)
> > > On that line of thought, a ship shouldn't have more
Yes.
> A ship with all FP and FS arc weapons
True.
[snip]
> My favorite way to destroy SMP ships is to hit them while they
While I agree with the theory, I have to ask: What speeds to you fly at? My
table is big enough for speeds of 40 or higher, which gives any capitals a
very limited time to shoot any SMP ships even with AA batteries -
provided, of course, that the attack boats manage to position themselves
properly and don't overshoot. One salvo at range 40 or more usually isn't
enough...
> A lot depends on the initiative system you use. If
Yes. I go with the system in the FT book - each player fires one ship in
turn. That ensures that the big ships can fire early if they want to.
> Michael Sandy wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
> Specificly, what kind of ship was appropriately
...Snip(JTL)
> A Kra'Vak escort should have all its weapons in one
Michael, The heavy cruiser you mentioned can be done at mass 36
W/ 2-PTorp, 2-Screen, 2- PDAF with current design rules.
(A minimum thrust of 5 is reccomended.)
Check Brian Bells web page for the kra'Vak I have submitted to see what a 'one
arc ship' looks like. (I was in an 'odd' mood the day I did the designs.
The 2-arc coverage will be difficult to work with unless one
changes the fire arcs to include a forward hemisphere arc of fire. By
including this in the game one could have a problem with the 'unreal' feeling
of a ship that has four weapons that point forward and can only fire 2 weapons
to each side of dead ahead.. Does the suggestion also apply to secondary
(scatterguns) weapons.
Bye for now,
Excerpts from FT: 7-Jan-98 Re: Roles of various ship c.. by to@stsci.edu
> >Specificly, what kind of ship was appropriately
Well, lessee... overall, actually, you didn't do too poorly, 'cause I didn't
take out the 'Teske' until later. (Yes, he named a ship after me. Yes, it was
the only one that ever hit with it's pulse torp. I'm not sure if there's a
connection or not....)
But that first salvo was 4 or 5 pulse torps at 4+, as I recall, and you
[snip]
> An additional comment: I tend to lose weapons faster than firecons
Simple probabilities: If you have 2 weapons and one firecon, you have twice
the probability of losing a weapon during a threshold check than of losing a
firecon.
[snip]
- Sam
> Sure. But a thrust 8 heavy cruiser costs 50% more than a thrust 4
It is closer to 4:3 in cost ratio. Seriously, if we are using 4 Mass for Pulse
Torpedos, 4 mass for 2 Arc A Beams, 5 Mass for 3 arc A Beams, I'll take two
Pulse Torpedo Cruisers and an escort swatter with Thrust 8 vs almost any 4
cruisers with thrust 4 you care to put them against. At the very least it will
be an even fight, and having faster ships gives me the ability to run away or
pursue, a very useful strategic option.
I'll take Level-3 shields, 2 PTs and a PDAF, and
Level-3 shields, A PC Beam and A CS Beam and a PDAF
> > True, but the escort-swatter would also have good shields as
Beam armed. If they had been PT-armed the cruiser would not
have survived some rather poor ship handling I did at first.
> > My favorite way to destroy SMP ships is to hit them while they
I have to ask, if that is the speed you are flying at, how do you manage to be
within good SMP range at all? Even an 8 thrust ship
can't do a U-turn if it misses on the first pass. If the target
is spread out in a large fleet I can see a few successful SMP strikes. Thrust
2 ships can't dodge usefully, but that just proves my point about the
advantages of faster cruisers. Like missiles, a good defense against
submunition ships is a lot of speed, as the area of their most effective range
is close to that of missiles.
> Yes. I go with the system in the FT book - each player fires one ship
> Samuel wrote:
> >An additional comment: I tend to lose weapons faster than firecons
Sorry, should've been clearer. I tend to lose weapons _proportionally_
faster (ie, by the time I've lost half of my firecons, I've usually lost
over three-quarters of my weapons...). I'm used to having my ships blown
up or being defeated because all weapons have been destroyed, but (excepting
needle beams) the firecons don't die until the third treshold check - if
that :-/
> Michael wrote:
> > Sure. But a thrust 8 heavy cruiser costs 50% more than a thrust 4
Or worse, for heavily screened cruisers (5:4 for your examples below). True.
> Seriously, if we are using
Not a system I've seen before for the A beams, but no problem. There are lots
of similar suggestions floating around.
> , I'll take two Pulse Torpedo Cruisers and an
Four thrust 4 cruisers - I assume you mean the Mass 36 variety? Well...
Level-1 Screens and three A (PFS) batteries, or (more realistic and
all-round) two A (PFS), one B (PFS) (assuming Mass 2 for the three-arc
B)
and three PDAF would be quite OK. (Since I don't know what you use for the
1-arc A battery I don't design a broadside ship, but that's what I
prefer for slower types.) Both outgun your swatter by more than its screens
help
it, and I'm not too worried about the PT cruiser - thanks to my weak
screens the PTs are more powerful than the A's on the swatter only at range 6
or less (where you won't be very often), and have a more restricted arc of
fire.
I've fought on both sides in similar scenarios (winning and losing with both),
though at equal points rather than a strong advantage to the slower
side (my choosen squadrons each outcosts your by 35-40%). Based on those
battles, I'd say that the above fight would be pretty even if you roll well
for your first PT roll (knocking one of my cruisers out fast), and uneven to
my advantage otherwise.
> I have to ask, if that [40+] is the speed you are flying at, how do
As long as I get within 12 mu, it's OK. Range 6 or less is a bonus, but not to
be counted on. If I miss, well... I'll be quite far from the enemy on the next
turn; he only gets one turn to kill me even though the turnaround takes some
turns. When you're used to high speeds, getting into range isn't too big a
problem either.
> If the target
Faster ships in general, truly. You need to be thrust 5 or higher to get
out of the way in my experience - at least when your opponent knows you
and
can predict your maneuvers :-/
> Like
But unlike missiles, their entire attack envelope is nine times as big, and
they have a lot more maneuvrability. They cost far more, of course.
Regards,