Re: Another tack on fighters

While I don't do fighters much myself, this has raised a question:

(here I use PD meaning all Point Defense type systems.)

If the fighters are overpowering vs FB1 ships, is it because:
  A) FB1 ships don't carry enough PD?
  B) The fighter-vs-ship attack rolls are too good?  (ie they have a
higher hit rate than the PDs.)
  C) The PDs don't do enough damage to fighters/ect.?
  D) Is it some combination of the above?
  E) Or is it really down to player tactics/ship designs/random results?

Any educated answers?

Donald Hosford

Thomas Barclay wrote:

> I don't agree with Mr. Foley on all his points.
> Perhaps the thing to keep in mind here is this:
> The models we mostly buy are FB ships. The
> ships used in most games (esp tournament or
> convention) are FB ships. So if fighters
> operating within the FB1 universe are
> overpowering (which they actually are), then the
> FB1 ships would not have evolved. Taking from
> the ex cathedra presentation of the FB, we then
> work backwards and say "how could this have
> come to be? why do ships only have 2-3 PDS?
> why isn't everyone using carriers galore? or
> SMR ships?" Obviously one approach is to toss
> out FB1 designs, but that isn't realistic for most
> people/situations. So the attempt is to try to
> find a band-aid for the problem.
>
> One interesting idea not yet discussed is the
> idea that fighter weapons are perhaps not as
> effective against all targets. A big slow SDN is
> an easy target perhaps, but a small high thrust
> scoutship might be quite a task to hit. Perhaps
> the issue may be addressed by changing the
> attack resolution for fighters so that the
> number of hits scored had some relation to
> mass or thrust or both, thus large slow targets
> could meet them less effectively (but they have
> armour, more PDS, and escorts) and smaller
> ships would not get gnawed up so fast.
>
> Also, letting ships engage fighters that are NOT
> attacking is one way to help prevent fighter
> swarms from forming in the middle or rear of
> your formation.....
>
> And lastly, another thought (why I don't like the
> fighter group limitation): If we're dealing with
> 100 or 1000km measuring units, then fighters
> can attack from 600 or 6000km. Just put that
> in a sphere and imagine how many fighters
> could attack.... the number would be pretty
> damn large. Yes, we can PSB this inconvenient
> basic physical fact away with some handwaving,
> but it isn't really that satisfying (or so says I).
>
> And one last thought - 25 PDS wouldn't even
> have slowed down the fighter swarms that
> came after my three Komarov mods in the
> CanAm a year and a half ago. Would have
> helped, but wouldn't have got the job done.
> And any escort in this game smaller than a CL is
> pretty much mincemeat after (at most) one
> round of ADFC duty.
>
> So much of how FT plays depends on which
> weapons you use, which rules, etc. You can
> build an SDN with 18-25 PDS, but a swarm of
> SMR corvettes will really ruin your day anyway.
> And an enemy SDN built with no PDS will equally
> ruin your day. Why? Because any situation
> where such insane matchups could occur makes
> no accounting for evolutionary design, fleet
> intelligence, etc - you don't generally have no
> idea what your foe is bringing to battle. In fact,
> you generally have some decent idea of the
> capabilities/designs of most of his classes. You
> might not know which ships will arrive (although
> you might have a good guess), but you
> probably know most of the types of ships that
> could show up reasonably and how many. But
> in a lot of one off games, it is an oddball
> version of paper-scissors-nuclear device.
>
> Tomb
> ---------------------------------------------
> Thomas Barclay
> Co-Creator of http://www.stargrunt.ca
> Stargrunt II and Dirtside II game site
>
> No Battle Plan Survives Contact With Dice.
> -- Mark 'Indy' Kochte