SV: Attack fighter versus shields

> Roger Books wrote:

> > > So what do they do to a ship with level 2 screens?
Fighters
> are the most expensive system on my ships.

The average cost of a standard fighter squadron including bay, hull, engines
etc is 87 points. Most ships are unable to take on their own
worth in standard fighters (the Beijing/BE, some K'rathi ships and a
few other dedicated anti-fighter designs excepted). Fortunately they
rarely have to, since fighter players insist on arming their carriers
and bring a host of non-carrier ships that dilute the fighters.

Attack fighters are already worth their cost - indeed, if anti-shipping
attacks were the only pricing consideration they should cost upwards of
105 points, but their poor anti-fighter abilities make up for some of
it (so they only cost on average 93). If they inflict 2 pts against
screen-2 on a roll of "7", they turn into yet another anti-heavy-screen
weapon. Anti-heavy-screen abilities are worth quite a lot indeed, which
is why most screen-skipping weapons do less damage than beams against
unscreened targets... or cost more in both Mass and points.

> I'll again make my assertion about "best" weapon in the game. The

<chuckle> Beams are intentionally designed to be the best multi-use
weapons against unscreened targets. Against screened targets, and
particularly screen-2 targets, they suffer... witness the list members
that claim that a heavily-screened fleet armed exclusively with Pulse
Torps (and some PDS, I assume) is unbeatable, for example <g> It isn't,
of course - not by a fleet designed to kill it - but it would most
likely take your proposed ship out.

IMO, there is no "best" weapon in FB1. The Class-2 is the one which
gets closest to being "best", but it all depends on what ships your
enemies bring  since all designs have a counter-design which best them.

Regards,