> stiltman@teleport.com wrote:
> Oerjan wrote:
Yes, you did. You claimed that a standard fighter squadron would inflict on
average at least 6*2.8 points of damage, where 6 = the number of endurance
points the fighters have and 2.8 = the average damage of 6 standard fighters
firing 1 shot each against a target with
level-2 screens.
You then used this number (6*2.8 = 16.8) to imply that standard fighters hurt
ships more than FB2 torp fighters (6*2.5 = 15).
The only way all the fighters of a standard fighter squadron can fire all six
of their shots (total of 6*6 = 36 shots) is if the squadron takes no losses
whatsoever during any of its attacks. Since you compare the damage inflicted
by the average fighters over 6 attacks (and 6 rounds of PD fire) with the
damage inflicted by torp fighters in 1 attack (and 1 round of PD fire), you
are effectively assuming that the fighters take no losses from PD.
You may not be *aware* that you made this assumption, but your argument relied
on it.
And, Stiltman: I do not "skim" your posts. I read them quite carefully; that's
why I so often get confused when they aren't coherent.
Regards,
> stiltman@teleport.com wrote:
> > Uhhhhh... Oerjan... please stop skimming my posts and then
> Yes, you did. You claimed that a standard fighter squadron would
Okay, Oerjan... it appears we have a disconnect in here somewhere. Maybe
you're just skimming my posts so you don't notice close details, but you say
you're not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... but that basically
means that evidently you just have trouble understanding me here. My sincere
suggestion (if you _don't_ want us to be flaming each other for the rest
of our days on this list... I'm not planning on going anywhere, and I assume
you're not either) is that, rather than assuming I'm out of my blooming gourd
and publicly posting comments to that effect when the ultimate problem is your
own failure to clearly understand me, you either try to fill in the
blanks yourself or, if all else fails, _ask_ me what I mean. We'll
probably get along much better.
In this particular case, the missing word here is "surviving"... in front of
the words "fighter squadron."
i.e. a surviving standard fighter squadron will inflict at least 2.8 * 6
damage, as opposed to the torpedo bomber quad at 15.
If there are enough fighters to attack repeatedly, this can still add up to a
lot of damage. Yes, bombers will do damage faster (depending on house rules
about how long it takes to reload them). However, fighters will do
_enough_
damage (while, yes, taking more losses to their own numbers) that it's
questionable whether it's worth the +18 cost to arm your fighters as
bombers instead, especially when you take the dogfighting weakness into
account.
My end point, thus, doesn't change: there's a lot of options that a carrier
force can throw, but all regular fighters is the one with the highest total
offensive and defensive firepower at the least cost, that leaves you with the
least risk of getting caught in a bad position if your enemy doesn't throw the
kind of fleet at you that you expect them to.
If you can trust that you'll have fighter superiority, then sure, you should
give some serious thought to using torpedo bombers. That, I'll most certainly
agree with.
If you can't trust anything about what your opponent's going to throw at you
(as I can't) then all regulars is your best bet over all other possibilities.
Anything else creates a gamble that doesn't pay off enough to be worth the
risk.
> on 6/16/00 14:02, stiltman@teleport.com at stiltman@teleport.com wrote:
> i.e. a surviving standard fighter squadron will inflict at least 2.8 *
I'm personally not convinced that your measuring of expected damage output
from 6 turns of firing (all CEF used for fire) of a standard fighter squadron
against the single turns firing of a torpedo squadron is a valuable
comparison.
Each person has their own experiences, however I have yet to see many fighter
squadrons not expend a CEF or three for secondary movement somewhere in their
combat life. Besides, with the extra vulnerability to PDS fire it's likely
that some will not survive to fire again.
The cost for each fighter group not only includes the cost of the fighters
themselves but the cost of the carrier they base off of. For simplicity I've
only roughly factored in the cost of the mass and cost for the fighter bay
needed but also the mass and cost for the appropriate increase they cause for
the FTL and MD factors (ignoring at this time the cost of the shields, cloak,
reflex field, etc.)
For a speed 4 carrier its about 44 points. For a speed 2 carrier its about 41
points.
For the sake of argument let's assume the following instance: no squadron
definition (PDS fire carries over), no fighter morale (which would hurt the
standard fighters more), no extra CEF expenditure for secondary moves, 2
groups of fighters (1 normal, 1 torpedo armed) each up against a Maria Von
Burgund Battleship with no support. There are 18 fighters for 177 points
((18+41)/6 and 13 torp fighters for 167 points ((36+41)/6).
Reg. Fighters vs Torpedo Fighters
18 fighters Turn 1: PDS (avg 3.2 kills) 15 left
avg damage done 12 (tot 12)
Turn 2: PDS (avg 3.2 kills) 12 left
avg damage done 9.6 (tot 21.6 -1 PDS)
Turn 3:
PDS (avg 2.4 kills) 9 left
avg damage done 7.2 (tot 28.8 -1 PDS)
Turn 4:
PDS (avg 1.6 kills) 8 left
avg damage done 6.4 (tot 35.4)
Turn 5:
PDS (avg 1.6 kills) 6 left
avg damage done 4.8 (tot 40.2 -1 PDS)
Turn 6:
PDS (avg .8 kills) 5 left
avg damage done 4 (tot 44.2)
The MVB is in bad shape but it also killed 13 fighters worth 39 points
(fighter cost only here).
13 torps fighters Turn 1: PDS (avg 3.2 kills) 10 left
avg damage done 25 (-1 PDS)
Turn 2 / 3 / 4:
gone back to carrier and returning (note I've taken 1.6 fighters off for the
chance of not being able to re-launch as per FB2 - normally squadron by
squadron but in this case...) Turn 5: PDS (avg 2.4 kills) 6 left approx.
avg damage done 15 (40 tot -2 PDS)
The MVB is in bad shape but it also killed 6 fighters worth 36 points (fighter
cost only here).
There were a number of approximations made to take away fluky die roll but
still count the chances in (thus the accumulated fractional damage,
accumulated fractional fighter loss of effectiveness).
In the end 177 points (hull & fighters) of normal fighters did 44 points of
damage in 6 turns loosing 13 fighters (39 points). 167 points of torp fighters
did 40 points of damage loosing about 6 fighters for (36 points).
I favored the normal fighters on most of the issues as carrier cost are
probably a bit more. The dropping of fighter morale helped the normal variety
more than the torp fighters as does the no CEF secondary move.
Each of these types will have a advantages over others when employed in the
roll they are designed for. Normal fighters will have a significantly better
time against opposing fighters, torp fighters disable their target faster with
a little less loss. Torp fighters also cut through the screened ships much
faster (the armor penetration is only midly useful against NSL cruisers but
more so against Phalons).
A lot of this will depend on tactics thought. Using escorting fighters to
soak off the screening defending fighters will make a difference. As
does overwhelming the target. It only takes approx. 22 torp fighters to
destroy (avg) the MVB in one turn while it takes nearly 61 normal fighters to
do so assuming a loss of 3 fighters during the attack.
> If there are enough fighters to attack repeatedly, this can still add
But it's more difficult to get all those fighters to attack repeatedly. The
enemy can reinforce the target of the fighters attack and potentially force
the fighters to burn up CEF in secondary moves to continue to attack the
target.
Play style and house rules are going to effect the value of each type of
fighter - however IMHO the torp fighters are appropriately balanced
considering the "standard" rules portfolio and over a fairly broad range of
forces.
> My end point, thus, doesn't change: there's a lot of options that a
If you factor in the cost of the ship hulls needed to carry the fighters I
don't believe the regular fighters come out costing less.
The risk of being "out guessed" is always there with ships, fighter numbers
and fighter assignments. Having superiority is not always necessary for
making use of specialized fighter - assigning them to the appropriate
positions and tactical use is as or more critical.
Although this has nothing to do with the issue above I often find it
challenging to use items like torp fighters at times when it seems difficult
or impossible. Sometimes it's possible to catch an opponent flat footed when
you have a torp fighter group in with a number of regular fighter groups
especially if the enemy doesn't know what type of fighters they are
until he/she has scanned them successfully.