> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> The side effect has been that this has rendered fighters
Oh, I dunno, I did reasonably well at Cancon with a 2-CV and 1-CVL
fleet. The trick is to take a reasonable mix of fighters, not just
bog-standard ones.
Consider: the traditional USN Aircraft mix has been: 2 Fighter Squadrons, 2
Attack Squadrons, and a Torpedo Squadron. These days, it's
2 F-14 Fighters, 2 F-18 Fighter-Bombers, and 1 A-6 Intruder Heavy
Bomber.
I had 2 Dogfighters, 2 Heavy fighters, 2 Torpedo fighters on each CV, and 2
Heavy and 2 Torpedos on the CVL. Basically, the Heavy Fighters strip away the
screen while the Torpedo bombers hit the Capitals. 72 incoming fighters means
he can't get all of 'em. You DO take losses though, heavy ones. But with
enough fighters, you can saturate the defences. Take half as many, and none
will get through, it's very much an "all or nothing" situation.
Given the points/mass costs for ADAFs and PDAFs though, it's reasonable
to have them shooting at anything within range. As well as being simpler.
One thing that may make things simpler still is to treat Missiles as
"Missile Swarms" of 6 fighter-like things, using all fighter rules, with
the exception that if they fire, either in dogfight or at a ship, they
evaporate. This makes them much like the salvoes of Styxes, Harpoons etc of
today. It also means you can have fewer rules.
Just a philosophical thought here that some players might not like but I'll
say it anyway to see what the rest of you think (no flames please, its just a
question I have everytime the missile swarm subject comes up):
Why can't a ship's main weapons (beam batteries mainly) target and fire at
missiles? Sure they are small but an A-batt can fire on a mass 2
system defense ship that would be only slightly larger. Missiles have a max
speed that is easily beaten by other ships plus missiles can't manuver (turn)
as well as a normal ship. Fighters must be less than mass one so there is a
good reason why they can't be hit but I can make a ship the size of a missile
and I can shoot at the ship but not the missle so what is the difference?
A likely answer is that the missile has some stealth or jamming built in so it
is harder to hit but is that good enough?
Also I like the idea of allowing ECM from the underused enhanced and superior
sensor systems to make missiles miss their target.
Dean says to all listening:
> Why can't a ship's main weapons (beam batteries mainly) target and
That, and/or the Mass cost to the missile includes some kinda of storage
and launching system? Yeah, that thought can be shot full of holes, but it's a
thought. Run with it.
> Also I like the idea of allowing ECM from the underused enhanced and
Yep, yep, I like that idear, too.
Mk
...Multi Snip...(JTL)
> > Also I like the idea of allowing ECM from the underused enhanced and
Missiles, If we were talking about something that really constitued a
danger I would agree without reservation. To hit a target with
a missile the players ship must be really slow or the player is distracted by
some REAL danger.
Bye for now,
On Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:33 PM, dean.gundberg@bcbsnd.com
> [SMTP:dean.gundberg@bcbsnd.com] wrote:
> Why can't a ship's main weapons (beam batteries mainly) target and
Maybe allow C-bats to engage in point defence mode as in MT. I'm not
sure you could hit it with an A bat, on a subjective level (Hitting an exocet
with a 15 inch naval gun)
> A likely answer is that the missile has some stealth or jamming built
Not really
> Also I like the idea of allowing ECM from the underused enhanced and
I think ECM should effect them
In the Honor Harrington Universe (HHU) for example its used a lot to stop mass
missle attacks along with interlocking point defence systems
> From: dean.gundberg@bcbsnd.com
(snip)
> Also I like the idea of allowing ECM from the underused enhanced and
In our house rules, we created two new systems; ADAM, and PDAM. These operate
exactly like ADAF's and PDAF's only vs. Missiles.
ECM on a target ship reduces the chances of a missile hit. Player who
fires missile must roll a d6 when it's within 6". On a roll of 4-6 the
missile burns through the ECM and hits. On a 1-3 the missile is
confused and spends this turn trying to acquire the ship. This continues each
turn until the missile locks on or uses up it's fuel. Can make for some tense
die rolling.
Note: We limit ship velocity in our games to give missiles and fighters slower
targets. Actually, we limit the maximum safe velocity a ship can TURN at. If
you're flying straight we assume the hull is built to handle the acceleration
of the engines. Turning is another matter.
Pete
The mates that I play FT with really don't have a problem with batteries not
be able to shoot missiles which we all assumed were about the same size as a
fighter. What we did do is allow ADAF's and PDAF's to attack any target within
their range. This allowed ships within 6" of each other the overlock their
PDAF fire (like ADAF's in FT) and support each other as well as shoot missiles
that zipped past them toward another ship, (makes the PDAF's on your destroyer
screen real useful). The side effect has been that this has rendered fighters
almost totally inefective against capitals and tight flotillas. To give the
fighters something back we came up with (but have not tried): Wild Weasel
Fighters
+12 points per group
Dogfighting hit on 6 only May attack ships from 9" Each hit is against an ADAF
or PDAF directly. Each hit causes and ADAF or PDAF (one for each hit) to take
a threshold test failing on 4,5,6 No other damage done to target ship.
Just a couple of ideas.
Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au
> At 13:32 23/04/98 -0600, you wrote:
Of the 5 blokes who regularly play FT at our club I'm the only one that
consistently uses carriers (if fact at the moment I'm the only that uses them
at all). I've always loved torpedo fighters and mine have developed quite a
reputation, hence the house rules about fighter defences since they aren't
happy with C batteries as anti fighter weapons (which suits me). We generally
use ship designs straight out of the book so fighters aren't totally
ineffective but now you have to use "combined arms" tactics to make them work
at all (gone are the days when 6 heavy torpedo bombers could fly into the
centre of an enemy fleet and take out a superdread, sigh). The usual mix of
fighters I use for a fleet carrier is an interceptor, 2 heavy fighters, 2
heavy torpedo fighters and either a heavy attack or another heavy torpedo. The
other blokes are now mounting heavy fighters on their dreads which cuts back
on the effectiveness of the interceptors. 'Might have to make them heavy as
well.
Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au
> At 01:35 23/04/98 +1000, you wrote: