Prev: DSII Question Next: Re: Dimension

Figher Balance Issues - Replies...

From: Jerry Han <jhan@c...>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 22:59:51 -0500
Subject: Figher Balance Issues - Replies...

Grouped together for your reading pleasure or torture... (8-)

Thomas Barclay wrote:
> > Second of all, let us make the assumption that in order to be a
> > weapon of war, fighters must have the ability to damage warships
> > efficiently.  It is through warship damage that the fighter can most

> > directly influence the outcome of battle.	It is assumed that all
> > 'fighter' functions - recon, defence, etc are either derived from,
> > are in response to this type of threat.  
> If you're just talking FT yes. If you are including the functions in 
> a 'complete' universe, you'd have to concede that ground attack, 
> tacair, etc. were functions not covered under the above stipulation. 
> But you might (if we wish to differentiate these from fighters), call 
> these 'ground attack craft'.	

Oh agreed.  I just assumed naval power projection missions for the
involved.  There may be universes where fighters are not useful for
power projection, but extremely useful in planetary assault, garrison,
and defence duties. wrote:
> >For example, in current times, fighters have much higher speeds than
> >target ships, are fairly survivable against ship based weapons and
are only
> >vulnerable to other fighters, and carry relatively cost effective
> >that can severly damage or even sink ships.
> Modern ship weapons are actually very effective against A/C. The
> ability to survive is mostly because they don't even try to get close.
> A/C with antiship missions rely on long range stand off weapons like
> or Exocet launched from over the horizon.

This is a very recent phenomenon.  In World War II, the main anti-ship
of the time (airplane bombs, torpedoes, large calibre shell fire) and
the main
air defence weapons (small calibre gun, air defence fighter) were
ineffective against other targets.  Indeed you can argue that this
continues to this day, as large scale anti-ship missiles are ineffective
fighters, and SAM/AAMs and CIWS systems are ineffective against major
(This isn't a strong as in pervious generations, since today's navies
heavily on active defences, and have little in the way of passives.)

But the development of stand-off weapons is a perfect example of the
nature of offense/defence.  The development of reliable, accurate fire
for small-calibre weapons (culminating in CIWS systems), and the
development of
reliable surface-to-air missiles means the day of close in attacks
against a 
modern fleet are over.	(They are still viable against a fleet not
modernized - for example, Argentina vs UK, Falklands, 1982.)

John Leary wrote:
> Third, The only way to 'solve' the items you have mentioned is to 
> go the route of the dreaded 'house rule'.

I actually wasn't looking at solving anything.	(8-)  My only purpose in
to attack the issue of balance.  One of my pet peeves is when elements
'shoe horned' into a Universe just for the coolness of it all, with not
even a 
consideration as to whether or not this makes sense.  (Some Anime is an
of this.)

I do like 'no-brainer' movies just like everybody else (well, maybe not
else (8-) ); I just like a higher level of sophistication in my game

Apologies for the length of ramble,
Jerry Han -  CANOE Canada - -
  ***** Visit the Canadian Online Explorer! => *****
The opinions expressed are mine, and not necessarily those of CANOE
	 "Is there no escape from the words that plague me so?"

Prev: DSII Question Next: Re: Dimension