Prev: RE: DS: Walkers Next: Re: DS: Walkers

Re: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

From: "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@s...>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:29:38 -0500
Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

> Yes, really. Send in your escorts to take out the Lenovs one turn
BEFORE
the
> missile units get into the enemy's range; while the escorts will
almost
> inevitably take a very severe drubbing their sacrifice allows your
missiles
> to hit worthwhile targets. (Lenovs are very, very easy to destroy -
even a
> crippled Athena-class corvette usually manages to nail one :-) )

You are assuming that his Lenovs weren't a range band behind until the
turn
we closed to salvo missile firing range.  It's an old WWI naval trick. 
The
destroyers stay back while the battle line closes then dashes through to
make their attack (usually to cover the battle lines withdrawl, or crush
a
crippled enemy), or in this case to soak up missiles.

> (Before you say that "all this will accomplish is to get my escorts
wiped
> out for no benefit", please consider that the BJ screens used by the
NSL
> fleets in the AARs I mentioned in the previous post consisted of 16
> Strochen-class corvettes @ 6 damage points in the first battle and 14
> Falke-class scouts @ 3 damage points in the second. Each of those
screens
is
> very much more difficult to take out than the 6 Lenovs @ 1 damage
point in
> the ESU fleet you described, yet my FSE light units were able to
destroy
> enough of them that they didn't interfere with my heavies' subsequent
> missile launches... and the two battles reported were no freak
accidents,
> either; this is one of my standard anti-BJ tactics for FSE-style
fleets
> faced with BJs, and so far it has given me victory against
BJ-believers
> about two-thirds of the times I've used it.)

Were his escorts about 8 to 12 inches behind his battle line until he
needed
them?  This particular battle I took 8 Ibiza's and no San Miguels, so
shy of
sending a cruiser up, I had that could range on his escorts until he
brought
them up.

> If you can arrange for the escorts to approach the enemy from another
> direction than the missile units, that's an extra bonus - either the
enemy
> spends thrust points (or, in Cinematic, come to a full stop to spin in
> place) to turn to face each of your squadrons in turn (in which case
he'll
> be less able to dodge your missiles), or at least one of your
squadrons
will
> be able to avoid his full direct-fire firepower.

Or send a few fighter squadrons out to crush them.

> Of course this tactic requires you to actually bring FSE escorts to
the
> battle (something many players don't bother with since small ships are
> 'worthless' in Full Thrust except as BJs), and it also requires you to
split
> your forces (something which many players believe is tactical insanity
which
> allows the enemy to defeat you in detail). Breaking two basic
rules-of-thumb
> for success in Full Thrust ("use large ships only" and "don't split
your
> fleet up") may seem a bit counter-intuitive at first, so if the battle
you
> describe was the first time you had encountered Banzai Jammers it is
quite
> understandable if you didn't	think of it :-7

Actually, I usually bring 4 to 8 Ibiza's and 1 to 2 San Migueles.  Both
class of which attract a lot of firepower if anywhere in or infront of
my
battle line.  The Ibiza's are a real fire magnet until after the
submunitions have fired...

> Well, that's *one* of their advantages at least (concentration of
firepower
> means that they fire more weapons earlier in the Ships Fire phase of
the
> turn than multiple small ships do) :-/
>
> Their *other* advantages are that they also have a better
concentration of
> hull and armour boxes (so start losing weapons later than a number of
small
> ships with the same total number of damage boxes) and a better
concentration
> of DCPs (so far more likely to repair the weapons they lose than small
ships
> are). All things considered, I'd rate the concentration of hull and
armour
> boxes as somewhat more important than the concentration of firepower.

I'd argue it's synergistic.

> FWIW many groups which use custom designs do both of these - put an
ADFC
on
> every ship, *and* bring a dedicated ADFC cruiser or two :-/

The old, "well make this a target to draw fire."  If done properly, it
can
work very well.

> The big-ship advantages (discussed a bit above) are another problem
area,
> yes, but the non-linearity you get there is considerably smaller than
the
> fighter non-linearity.

The problem with small ships is that they need more one-shot high damage
weapons to be effective against larger ships.  This goes back to my
World
War I analogy.	The torpedoe boots could cripple or sink a battleship,
but
then they were out of weapons that could effect the battle line.  And
this
assumes they could close to the range needed.  My version of the Ibiza,
one
less class one, one more submunition pack illustrates what I'm talking
about.	I'd prefer MKP's, but they are a Kravak weapon...

> Six to eight fighter groups in a 3000-pt fleet is not exactly what I'd
> consider "fighter heavy", though... Imre's 18 groups in a 3000-pt
battle
is
> more like it, but he is still a bit on the light side (those NAC
carriers
> spend a LOT of mass and points on screens and armour...) :-/>

I think the point is that they are as close as you can get to soap
bubble
carriers in ships from the Fleet Book.	I will not use soap bubble
carriers,
because if your opponent counters with high speeds and calculates his
closure rate correctly, you will almost always loose.  Soap bubbles pop
very
easily.

ias

Prev: RE: DS: Walkers Next: Re: DS: Walkers