Re: FT-Torpedo fighters

BIF wrote:

>This has given me a idea. How about for torpedo fighters, giving them a
>selection of missiles to chose from. We have the standard heavy
missile,
>with a range of only 6 MU, requiring the fighter to enter the PDS
envelope
>of the target, but with 4 to 6 dammage.

Standard FT "Torpedo fighter" load.

>We could also have a light missile, same range as above, but only 1 to
3 
>points of dammage (1D6 -3, positive number is a hit and the dammage
done), 
>but 2 missiles per fighter.

OK. Lower total average damage than the standard load (2x1 = 2 pts
instead 
of the 2.5 for the standard "torpedo"), but increased flexibility.

>Their is also the posibility of a long range missile. [...] The long
range 
>missile would be fired from outside the PDS envelope, giving the PDS a 
>chance to intercept the fighter missiles while they are comming into 
>range. The fighter would not have to enter the PDS range of the target.

>The long range fighter missiles would have a range of 9 MU, and a
dammage 
>same as a light missile (1 to 3). You would roll a 1D6 -3, and any 
>missiles that hit would have a chance to be intercepted by PDS
>before hitting. Now, I know the chance of hitting would be low,
esspecially
>with the PDS shooting down the missiles on the way in, but since the
>fighters don`t have to enter PDS range to launch, more fighters would
suvive
>to try again.

Not only will more fighters (ie., *all* fighters) survive to try again,
but 
more importantly they don't have to take any morale check which means
that 
the attack will always get in.

Schoon's example:

>Take a typical squadron of 6 fighters attacking a CH, which typically
have 
>about 2 PDS. Each missile does an average of 1 "hit," making 6 hits for

>the squadron. The PDS will stop 1.6 hits. This means that an average 
>fighter squadron will do 4.4 points on the CH without any chance of it 
>damaging the fighters in return. Why would anyone NOT take this option!

Usually not quite *this* bad though, unless the cruiser has already been

damaged. Typical (undamaged) heavy cruisers have 2-3 PDSs + 1-2 B1-6s, 
so    could expect to intercept 2-3.2 missiles on its own allowing the 
fighters to inflict "only" 2.8-3.2 pts. Still, considering that the 
fighters don't take *any* damage to themselves that's too much already -
a 
lone torpedo squadron attacking the same lone cruiser (and taking the 
morale roll) would inflict on average 3.3-6.7 pts, an attack squadron
would 
inflict 1.6-3.2 pts (or less if the cruiser is screened) - and in both 
cases 2-3 of the attacking fighters are destroyed.

What about making the long-range fighter missiles inflict 1D6-4 points
per 
fighter instead? Average damage per fighter is 0.5 pts, so an average 
undamaged cruiser would take very little damage from a lone fighter 
squadron; a solid ADFC phalanx would be very difficult to crack even for

massed missile fighters. (Which, BTW, is exactly what happens in
Starfire 
:-) ) If the fighters have unlimited time at their disposal they'll
still 
be able to take out any fighter-less non-SV enemy without taking any
losses 
themselves, but it'd be a slow death of a thousand cuts rather than a 
single massive blow - and the enemy would have plenty of time to
withdraw 
if he can't break through to the carriers while the fighters are
reloading.

BIF again:

>If you are going to say about differentiating between
>different loadouts on the torpedo fighters, you can always use the
sistem we
>do, and have 1 model per fighter, with a number on said fighter, and a
>record sheet to tally the number of losses/missiles fired/missile
loadout
>etc.

Allowing different fighters in a single squadron to have different
weapon 
loads is a *pain*. I wouldn't allow that, no.

Schoon replied to BIF:

>>Came from remembering the WDA/WotW discusion, where someone said "50%
>>increase in range equals x2 mass" (I THINK). I used 50% increase in
range
>>and 50% dammage, plus chance of PDS intercept. The idea for these
missiles
>>is to engauge outside the PDS of your target. Doesn`t help against
ADFC or
>>AFHAWK though <G>.
>
>The 50% rule may hold true for ship borne weapons, but fighters are a 
>whole different ball of wax.
>
>By engaging outside the PDS envelope, you make it impossible for the
ship 
>to strike the fighters, regardless of ADFC. You can defend using that 
>system, but it still allows the fighters to attack with complete
impunity.

Schoon got it in one here. A longer *ship-borne* weapon range doesn't 
guarantee that you're outside enemy weapons range; longer fighter
weapons 
ranges does guarantee that you won't get any counter-fire (except from 
other fighters, and from Sa'Vasku).

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."