Prev: [FT] Fighter Balance (was: FT-Number crunching required) Next: [DS2) Highly frustrating quibble was Re: weapons fit

Re: [FT] Fighter Balance (was: FT-Number crunching required)

From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@y...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 06:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [FT] Fighter Balance (was: FT-Number crunching required)

Book ships seem to me to have a very low level
of fighter/missile defense. Even three squadrons
will leave a mark unless there is an ADFC ship
present or unless the ships have a lot of PDS's
but the fighters will probably get whittled down. 

By the time there are four unopposed squadrons
(especially if they're heavy) they can dominate
the game unless they are very unlucky or the 
targets are very lucky with their PDS. At that
point and beyond you really need your own carrier
to respond. 

This is just my own opinion based on fairly
limited experience getting attacked by fighters.
My Federation ships are based around being able
to defend themselves against a single 6 squadron
carrier on a point value of about 1500-2000 
points. Sometimes they slaughter the fighters.
Sometimes they get slaughtered, but it seems to
work out *reasonably* well. When I'm particularly
worried, I bring more Larson DDs which have more

This strategy had a particularly bad effect on a
small French book fleet as the PDS's I had to 
defend against fighters were almost invulnerable
to french SM attacks.

A game we played recently with book NAC/NSL against
book FSE/ESU was pretty even at 5000 points a side.
The FSE/ESU had 2 SDN/carriers with 10 squadrons
and the other side had 7 squadrons of fighters 
mostly from a NAC Ark Royal carrier. The NAC/NSL
side was a little behind but still basically holding
their own after two salvos of missiles from the
FSE, but the extra fighters on the ESU/FSE side
WERE causing substantial damage.

--- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
<> wrote:
> OK. Where is the balance point?
> Against a balanced fleet of Fleet Book ships, where
> is the balance point?
> Lets take a target fleet of a BB, 3 CH, 2 CE, 4 DDs
> (10 ships). One of:
> NAC: 1x Victoria BB, 3x Vandengurg CH, 2x Furious
> CE, 4x Ticonderoga DD
> NSL: 1x MVBurgund BB, 3x Markgraf CH, 2x Radetzky
> CE, 4x Walburg DD
> FSE: 1x Roma BB, 3x Jerez CH, 2x Milan/E*, 4x San
> Miguel DD
> ESU: 1x Petrograd BB, 3x Voroshilev CH, 2x
> Beijing/BE CE, 4x Warsaw DD
>  *FSE has no ADFC ships. Milan/E replaces a C2B and
> a salvo missile reload
> with an ADFC and 2 extra PDS (and reorients the
> remaining C2B to FP,F,FS).
> Fleet mass runs 582-634. Cost runs 1950-2120
> I know that 1 fighter group has little value. 2 has
> some value, but I would
> still give standard weapons the advantage. 3 is
> close to even value. 4
> begins to tip the advantage toward the carrier
> fleet. 5 goes to the carrier
> fleet. All IMO.
> How would you read the situation? How many fighter
> groups are too weak to be
> of value. How many are too many as to be
> overpowering if the other side does
> not have any?
> A balanced system should not force the other side to
> take it to be
> competitive or to take the specific remedy (i.e.
> screens vs beams).
> Please do not read the above as sarcastic. It is not
> intended to be. I would
> like to know where others find the balance.
> -----
> Brian Bell
> -----
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Roger Books []
> > Sent:	Tuesday, July 10, 2001 8:46 AM
> > To:
> > Subject:	Re: FT-Number crunching required (HELP)
> > 
> > On 10-Jul-01 at 08:42, Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
> > (
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > > Missiles are like fighters the more you use, the
> more effective they
> > are.
> > > Fighter groups seem balanced at about 1 group
> per 3 friendly ships (
> > with a
> > > balanced, mixed mass fleet), where no more than
> 2 groups attack a single
> > > target in a single turn (playtesters can correct
> this perception if I am
> > > wrong and indicate the correct balance point).
> In MT, MT missiles seemed
> > > balanced at about 1 per 2 ships (where no more
> than 2 attacked a given
> > > target in a given turn). My version, above,
> should meet this same
> > balance
> > > point.
> > 
> > You would never get anything through in one of our
> games.  The
> > balance point is way over what you have listed.
> > 
> > Roger

Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail

Prev: [FT] Fighter Balance (was: FT-Number crunching required) Next: [DS2) Highly frustrating quibble was Re: weapons fit