Hi, I am new to this mailing list and Full Thrust.
I have some questions about tenders.
Can tenders carry replacement missiles or submunitions as cargo? How fast can
they rearm ships if they can?
If more than one ship is boarding a target at the same time, do they add their
boarding factors together?
How much would a bare bones non-ftl gunboat with a boarding factor of
1 and a thrust of 8 cost, and how many could you fit on a 36 mass tender?
It might be an interesting concept to have gunboats with missiles or
submunitions which then proceed to attempt to board or raid.
Does a 2 Mass non-ftl gunboat have 2 mass units available for systems?
In figuring out what size gunboat would be most effective it seems that
totally swamping a target's fire control is a good option. It would be
embarrassing for the target to have to inflict 4 points of
damage on a 1 point ship! A cruiser-sized tender could carry _18_
of these buggers with 2 submunitions or 1 missile each. A capital-sized
tender could carry 50.
Fortunately for play balance, 1 point ships are going to be quite vulnerable
to fighters. For all that they can carry somewhat better weapons, they have
their own scanners, and more of them can be brought onto the battlefield, they
aren't a play balance problem. Just a
book-keeping one.
A quick comparison between fighters and mass 2 or mass 4 gunboats: Fighters
Gunboats
More agile 12 or 18 move/turn Higher top speed with thrust
cheaper to replace Better weapon, Missile vs Torpedo Continuing combat role
after firing,
ability to rearm quickly at Carrier Scanners and longer endurance
Can be deployed away from Specialized Capital ship
Vulnerable to PDAF and ADAF Vulnerable to 'A' and 'B' batts Can easily attack
gunboats Could have PDAF, an efficient fighter killer, but only if targetted.
ADAF requires 4 mass gunboat.
Better attack range
I don't know. Anyone interested in running a light carrier against
an equivalent points 36 mass tender + gunboats to see how things
could go? Assume 3 ADAFs + 12 missile boats.
Note: If there are gunboats left after the tender and carrier have been
destroyed then a marginal victory goes to the tender.
About non-combat ships:
It has been commented upon that the platform for a Nova Gun has to be fairly
tough. However, unless you use some armor rules, most of that tonnage is going
to be wasted because it can't be used in conjunction with the Nova Gun.
The best military ships for a nova gun seem to be those with one-shot
weapons; missiles, submunitions or fighters. Just be careful that you don't
fry your own missiles and fighters! You could use the fighters to fence the
enemy into position for the Nova Gun. A bit of a conflict there, keep close
formation for the ADAFs to go after the fighters or spread out to avoid
getting nailed by the Nova.
However, just for kicks and giggles, imagine the face of your opponent if your
100 mass merchant ships turn up with either Wave Guns or Nova Guns. Yes, it is
silly, but with a little ECM to prevent them from
being scanned this would be one _hell_ of a surprise.
Hi, I am new to this mailing list and Full Thrust.
I have some questions about tenders.
Can tenders carry replacement missiles or submunitions as cargo? How fast can
they rearm ships if they can?
If more than one ship is boarding a target at the same time, do they add their
boarding factors together?
How much would a bare bones non-ftl gunboat with a boarding factor of
1 and a thrust of 8 cost, and how many could you fit on a 36 mass tender?
It might be an interesting concept to have gunboats with missiles or
submunitions which then proceed to attempt to board or raid.
Does a 2 Mass non-ftl gunboat have 2 mass units available for systems?
In figuring out what size gunboat would be most effective it seems that
totally swamping a target's fire control is a good option. It would be
embarrassing for the target to have to inflict 4 points of
damage on a 1 point ship! A cruiser-sized tender could carry _18_
of these buggers with 2 submunitions or 1 missile each. A capital-sized
tender could carry 50.
Fortunately for play balance, 1 point ships are going to be quite vulnerable
to fighters. For all that they can carry somewhat better weapons, they have
their own scanners, and more of them can be brought onto the battlefield, they
aren't a play balance problem. Just a
book-keeping one.
A quick comparison between fighters and mass 2 or mass 4 gunboats: Fighters
Gunboats
More agile 12 or 18 move/turn Higher top speed with thrust
cheaper to replace Better weapon, Missile vs Torpedo Continuing combat role
after firing,
ability to rearm quickly at Carrier Scanners and longer endurance
Can be deployed away from Specialized Capital ship
Vulnerable to PDAF and ADAF Vulnerable to 'A' and 'B' batts Can easily attack
gunboats Could have PDAF, an efficient fighter killer, but only if targetted.
ADAF requires 4 mass gunboat.
Better attack range
I don't know. Anyone interested in running a light carrier against
an equivalent points 36 mass tender + gunboats to see how things
could go? Assume 3 ADAFs + 12 missile boats.
Note: If there are gunboats left after the tender and carrier have been
destroyed then a marginal victory goes to the tender.
About non-combat ships:
It has been commented upon that the platform for a Nova Gun has to be fairly
tough. However, unless you use some armor rules, most of that tonnage is going
to be wasted because it can't be used in conjunction with the Nova Gun.
The best military ships for a nova gun seem to be those with one-shot
weapons; missiles, submunitions or fighters. Just be careful that you don't
fry your own missiles and fighters! You could use the fighters to fence the
enemy into position for the Nova Gun. A bit of a conflict there, keep close
formation for the ADAFs to go after the fighters or spread out to avoid
getting nailed by the Nova.
However, just for kicks and giggles, imagine the face of your opponent if your
100 mass merchant ships turn up with either Wave Guns or Nova Guns. Yes, it is
silly, but with a little ECM to prevent them from
being scanned this would be one _hell_ of a surprise.
Micheal,
Tenders - Missiles could be carried as cargo, just buy the missile
and place it in an unused/nonassigned mass area of the ship.
(However, I suspect that this is unnecessary as most of the attack boats will
be destroyed on the initial run.)
Reloading Missiles/submunitions - Simply consider the attack boats
as fighters for this function.
Boarding actions - Multiple boarding parties from many ships
is still only one attacking force.
Gunboats and Weapons - Mass Weapons #per ship
2 1 18
3 1 12
4 3 9
5 4 7
6 4 6
If one wishes to follow the carrier rules for the gunboat concept, only 2 per
turn can be launched. This means that mass 4, 5, and 6 are the most realistic
options during
a normal game. (The chart above is only a suggestion and
not necessarily what is normally used or preferred.)
Light carrier vs Gunboats and tender - I one did something
similar, Tender mass 36, 7 mass 5 gunboats, point cost about
550 to 600 points, it was a one turn combat. Tender/cruiser
33% damaged, 6 of 7 gunboats destroyed, all in all very satisfactory result
for an experiment. The Superdreadnought was at almost 50% and the Fleet
carrier was Past 25%. I wound up losing one of the two battleships in my
following force (to fighters) and finished the Superdreadnought. (I considered
the battle a draw.) (My money is on the carrier if it is built at thrust 5.)
Victory conditions - The gunboats are not FTL and cannot
claim a victory unless they are in a friendly system. (Those who wish to claim
victory, please stand up!)
Nove/Wave guns - Never used one, never seen one, never hope to.
I am certain you will get some other interesting comments, stay tuned to this
channel.
Bye for now,
In my experience, tenders cost too much and aren't very efficient. I've lost a
game using them and I cleaned the clock of a force using them. The concept is
neat and I like it, but it doesn't seem to work very well. Maybe we were just
using them wrong.
As for Nova/Wave guns we like them. Although we usually don;t mix them
in a force of fighters or missiles. Most of us seem to blow up our own
missiles/fighters with them. They work really good against fixed
installations, too.
+++++++++++++++
+------------+ +----------------+
Micheal, I will give you an answer off the list, primarily because I don't
want to bore everyone more that necessary.
By for now.
> Micheal,
> Gunboats and Weapons - Mass Weapons #per ship
I thought you couldn't have odd massed ships. Oh well. I thought that 1.5 mass
available for weapons would round up to two, that was why I thought 2 mass
gunboats would be effective. Versus a Dreadnought with 3 firecontrol, it
doesn't matter how many weapons he's got, he can only kill 3 per round. If you
can't swamp the fire control you may as well look for different break points,
like a Mass 10 cloaking gunboat with 3 missiles and a C Battery.
> Light carrier vs Gunboats and tender - I one did something
That is the limitation of most missile-gunboat concepts. If
they don't completely kill their opponents they let their team down.
> 33% damaged, 6 of 7 gunboats destroyed, all in all very
I wonder what sorts of initial conditions make a big difference. I assume the
tender drops off the gunboats as soon as it comes out of hyper, so unless the
enemy fleet is right on top of him this part isn't a problem. Would you tell
us a bit more about this battle?
If the gunboats are simply part of a larger force, perhaps it would be better
if they had Electromagnetic Pulse Missiles or Needle Missiles targeting
Shields. A long range AA battery engagement could be very unpleasant if one
side has level 3 shields and you have none! The larger the ship you are
targetting, the more you want EMP missiles or Needle Missiles instead of just
going for the damage.
> (My money is on the carrier if it is built at thrust 5.)
Why does having the carrier at a high thrust help so much?
> John L.
I wonder how much a difference it makes if the support battleships are
attacking at the same time as the missile gunboats. The defense used against
fighters use a different fire control, so if you can time it right so your
gunboats hit at the same time as the rest of the fleet then your opponent has
to choose between letting your battleships get a free shot or swat the
gunboats.
How important is fuel consumption in the game? I read that tenders and tug use
3x the fuel of an ordinary merchant, which would make them 33% less efficient
in terms of carrying cargo. If they aren't actually taking any ships with
them, do they still incur a fuel penalty?
How many FTL jumps can a ship make on a full tank?
How expensive is having a boat bay? I was thinking about all these slow thrust
merchant ships which have to tranship their cargos. Having a boat bay with a
streamlined thrust 8 cargo shuttle sounds ideal. It could double as an
emergency crew escape pod as well.
Tenders are useful, but the question is how much of your fleet
expenditures should go to them and their non-ftl cargo?
I happen to like the Mother Ship concept. Have a couple of 100 mass Tenders
with 15 hex range drives, thrust 2 and Cloaking and you can build some pretty
nasty designs for your dreadnoughts. More realisticly, have one 100 mass
tender and a bunch of 36 mass tenders.
(Does a Cloaked Tender cloak the ships she is carrying? Does a tender with
Shields, shield her passengers?)
Consider a comparison between non-ftl and ftl versions of a ship.
Consider two cruisers with Cloaking, Shield 1, and individual ECM. at 36 mass
the FTL cruiser starts out with 18 mass for systems,
the non-FTL cruiser starts out with 27 mass for systems.
After spending 4+3+2 mass on non-offensive systems the non-FTL
cruiser has twice the mass left over for offensive systems.
It is also pretty bad for 100 mass Superdreadnoughts: 9 for level 3 shields, 2
for Superior Sensors, 3 for Area ECM
and 3 for +1 fire control and you have 33 mass vs 68 mass
for weapons.
The more special systems you have, the better the ratio between
offensive mass and special system mass you get for the non-ftl
ship.
Non-ftl ships have a 7/5 edge over FTL ships, (7 FTL ships would
have 7/10 the weaponry but 7/5 the damage taking ability of
2 non-FTL ships, with some adjustment because with concentration
of firepower the FTL-side will probably lose a ship first.
Assuming a design where the non-ftl ship has ~twice as many weapons.)
In terms of cost the non-ftl ship will cost about the same as the
FTL one. A ship of 20 mass spends 20 points on FTL, and a ship without FTL has
5 mass more for weapons. At a ratio of 1 mass
per 3 construction points the non-FTL ship will be cheaper,
at 1 mass per 4 construction points they will be equal. At a
ratio of 1 mass per 5 construction points the non-ftl ship
will cost mass/4 more.
Most ships cost over 8 points per unit mass, much more for fast Capital ships
with lots of special equipment. The
FTL-cruiser above costs 10 points per unit mass if it has
a 6 thrust.
So in terms of cost, the non-FTL ship is going to be within
3% of the cost and 40% more effective in combat than an FTL-ship
of equal mass.
However, the cost of transporting these extremely effective ships
is _huge_. Logistical complications is a good phrase for it.
A tender costs over 8 points per unit mass for a basically
defenseless craft. Even with a quality edge of about 3-4 points
per unit mass you have to have over three times the carrying
capacity of your tenders in non-ftl ships before the concept
pays off.
On the up side, most of your combat losses are going to be in
comparitively cheap non-ftl ships rather than your expensive
logistical chain, right? Ummmm. Don't bet on it! Even if you equip your
tenders with cloaking devices they are going to be vital and tempting targets
for your enemy.
The higher the cost you are spending per mass unit on ships, the
more attractive the non-ftl option should be. If you are putting
level-1 shielding on your frigates, it _really_ pays to use
non-ftl frigates for some of them.
On the other hand, if you are putting 3 arcs of fire on all your
weapons the cost edge for the non-ftl ship isn't quite as good.
Likewise, if you are paying for premium fighter craft you don't
save as much by going non-ftl. Fighter craft can be the most
expensive weapon there is on a per mass basis.
Basically, the ratio between points spent on weapons versus the points spent
on everything else is what will tell you how much
benefit you will get from making a non-ftl version.
For example, a missile ship with special systems like shields, cloaking,
sensors, ECM or reflex fields can get a lot of benefit
from being made into a non-ftl design.
A non-ftl design with no special systems is only going to have
about a 22.5% advantage in combat ability by mass and between
+3% and -3% in cost. This means that to be effective there would
have to be over 5 times as much mass in non-ftl ships as their
tenders. (A ratio of 40 to 49 in damage absorption vs a ratio of 60 to 49 in
dealing damage.) Square root(1.5)
So the minimum combat advantage by mass a non-ftl ship will have
will be 22.5%, and it can go higher than 40% with some designs.
With 1-arc weapons, or missiles, the combat advantage by cost
could be as much as 45%!
Note: If you are designing a scout ship, then for purposes of
considering whether you want a non-ftl version or not, count
the sensor systems you purchase as weapons. Also, the
Weasel-Generator counts as weapons for this determination as
well. So weasels and dedicated scouts are most economically done as FTL ships.
Michael Sandy
Ob silly ship: Coffin #583412 (You don't name ships this small, just number
them.) Mass 1 Move 8 Ftl none Strm Fully (Why not? Its effectively free)
damage 1
systems: (.75 mass rounds up to 1 mass) fcs
submunition pack or C-beam PCS
cost: 7 or 9
If anyone sneezes on one of these, it dies, but it just isn't cost effective
to shoot them if anything else is in range. Especially if it combat resolution
is simultaneous and all
you manage to do is destroy an out-of-ammo ship.