Fighters.... and the effects thereof.

Anyone ever think about WW2? It started with DDs with poor AA (few PDS,
no ADFC). As the war evolved, and as the power of fighters became
obvious and dreadful, what happened? New classes of ship festooned with
PDS - including PDS heavy escorts, but every ship had PDS and some had
PDS upfits. You could even call some of what you saw a primitive ADFC
effect.

This was one prong of reducing the fighter attack: making the ships
painful to try to attack.

The second was tactics (where the ADFC part appears). Keeping close
enough for mutual support. Thus an effect like clustering and ADFC in
FT.

And another prong: Carriers. You watched theirs, tried to torpedo them
with subs or destroyers, etc. You didn't want to let their fighters get
close to your caps. And your fighters went after them. And interceptors
defended your carriers.

What did we learn? One off battles aren't real - there is no context or
lead up. In a *real* situation, the carriers might not make it that
close - your DD screens, submarine packs, and raiding fighters and
island based planes would let you know they were coming so you could
evade or launch a first strike. (In a perfect world). If they did get in
range, your AA was fierce.

So to deal with someone who brings ridiculous paper carriers to battle
with huge fleets of fighters, you have several choices, or a combination
of same:
1) Your own carriers.
2) DDs and small ships to kill their carrier before their fighters are a
threat - they travel in packs and can be very lethal if used right
(thanks Oerjan!)
3) PDS PDS PDS! ADFC! Just double or triple your PDS (or four times if
need be - they are low mass).
4) Formation tactics: use overlapping fire to rip them up
5) Aegis escorts. (similar to 3)
6) SPEED. If you have a big enough table, you can outrun the little
buggers. Oerjan is master of the high speed jousts.

These have varying places. But the truth is, you don't expect to nullify
them as a threat. The reason is why should you? Simply put, the enemy
sunk in a lot of NPV. You expect some bang for the buck. All you as the
defender want is to reduce the impact of the threat economically - that
is you must attrit their combat power without spending through the nose.
Seems like a bit bigger ships with more PDS and ADFC would work well. So
would fielding some interceptor squadrons.

Don't expect to eliminate their efficacy entirely - anymore than your
fighter-loving enemy expects to totally nullify your line-of-battle
heavies.

So, in a campaign, their are tactics, engineering changes, and
operational changes that make a difference. The use of combined arms
(your PDS escorts, your own fighters, DDs to cripple his carriers) is
also critical. In a one off game, these effects are harder to reflect
and min-max-monsters are more likely.

There has yet to be invented a weapon that can (I say this in a void as
to the lastest CIA black project mind you) not be defended against or at
least reduced in effect by a good combination of tactics, engineering,
and combined arms usage. In a battle between to near strength powers, it
isn't the use of a given system that wins the war, it is the use of the
best combination of same. (that is overgeneralizing mind you).

T.