Re: [FT] Fighter thoughts

Grant A. Ladue wrote:

> >How do you explain that a Banzai Jammer - which isn't much larger
than a
> >fighter itself - can outrun fighters during short sprints?
>
>An interesting question.  Let's see, fighters have limited combat
endurance,
>but aren't dead in space when that is expended. [...] The reason ships
can 
>outrun
>  fighters over a distance

*Over a distance*, fine - though I suspect that some pilots of fighters 
capable of interstellar travel, eg. X-wings or StarFuries, would have 
different opinions :-/ (And I'd prefer to be somewhere else entirely
when 
you explain to Lord Vader why *one* squadron of TIE Interceptors can
keep 
up with that small fleeing Rebel freighter indefinitely while a *second*

squadron is completely unable to do so...)

However, your proposed rule makes that distance less than *one tactical 
combat game turn's* worth of ship movement for any "excess" fighters -
thus 
my above question about SHORT sprints.

> >>Hmm, now that I think about it, how does a fighter group compare
versus a
> >>PDS for mass and effectiveness against missiles?  Would you be
better 
> off with
> >>a few fighter groups screening you (and providing their own fire
control)
> >>rather than using PDS's with fire controls?
> >
> >Depends on many things - eg. on how fast your defending fighters get
shot
> >down by the enemy ships (or fighters!), on whether or not the enemy
> >fighters get close enough to the PDS-equipped ship to be shot at by
them,
> >etc. Fighters are more flexible than PDS, but they can also be more 
> vulnerable.
>
>Let's simplify to just having heavy or salvo missiles attacking.

Insufficient data for answering the question.
* How many defending ships (ie., potential missile targets) are there?
* Do any of the defending ships have ADFCs (and are within 6mu of the
others)?
* How many of the potential targets actually do get attacked by the 
missiles? (Each ADFC can only protect one other ship.)
* If the defending ships don't have ADFCs, how are they located relative

both to one another and to the missiles? (If the ships don't occupy the 
exact same spot the attacking missiles could potentially attack one ship

without entering the PDS range of the others at all.)
* How many attacking missiles/missile salvoes are there? (Each FCS can
only 
direct fire against one missile salvo or one heavy missile each.)
* Can you spare enough FCSs to direct the PD fire, or do you need them
for 
firing your anti-ship weaponry at enemy ships this turn (eg. the ships
that 
launched those incoming missiles)?
* Are the enemy ships that launched the missiles within their direct
fire 
anti-ship weapons' range of your fighters? If so, how many CEFs did your

fighters spend on evasive manoeuvres to avoid getting shot down by the 
enemy's anti-ship weapons before they can engage the incoming missiles?
* Not least importantly, what type of fighters are you using -
Interceptors 
or Standards? (Attack/Torpedo fighters are nearly useless for PD tasks.)

This list of questions is by no means exhaustive.

There isn't one single point where the fighters overtake PDSs in 
effectiveness; instead there is a different such point for each
different 
tactical situation. To reiterate my above statement: the fighters are
more 
flexible than PDS, but they can also be more vulnerable. If you need the

fighters' higher flexibility (eg. because there are many missiles and
many 
potential missile targets) *and* you can prevent the enemy from
exploiting 
the fighters' higher vulnerability, then fighters can be considerably
more 
effective in PD roles than their own cost of PDSs and various types of
fire 
controls. If you don't need the flexibility, or you need it but fail to 
protect your fighters sufficiently, then the PDSs will most likely be
better.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry