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...)
> 

   I imagine it would be roughly the same explanation as to why the
fighters
 within 3 mu of the freighter could keep up, but fighters 4 mu away
can't.
 Actually, explaining anything to Lord Vader is potentially unpleasant. 
:-)
 Really though, the SW universe is a terrible one for this discussion. 
SW
 fighters are clearly *much* faster than ships outside of light speed. 
I'm
 sure it would make the book-keeping crazy, but SW fighters should
probably
 be treated as small ships, with thrust and ftl (for x-wings).	I
imagine you
 all have heard that before though.  :-)

> 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.
>

   Unless I'm misremembering, fighters have a primary move of 24 mu, and
a 
 secondary move of 6 mu, right?  Now, the only way for a ship to outrun
a 
 fighter right beside it is to be accelerate past a move of 30 mu.  That
means
 it's got one big honkin' engine or else it it was hauling extra fast to
begin
 with.	In the first case, shouldn't a giant engine *be* able to outrun
a small
 fighter?  In the latter case, it doesn't seem like a short sprint to
me.
 I mean the rule as it is now means that a large ship can *never* outrun
a 
 small fighter, even if it was going at a significant fraction of c and
the
 fighter had a standing start, so long as they happened to be within 3
mu at
 the start of a turn.
   I hope I don't sound like an active opponent of the screening rule,
I'm not.
 I'm just sort of talking out my thoughts on it.  I'm starting to wonder
if the
 best answer is to allow a fighter to spend cef's on an extra primary
moves (or
 half of one or some such).  Then you're modelling fighters as fuel
burners, 
 able to pour it on for more speed.  For universes like SW just give the

 fighters more cef to model their higher short distance speed over
ships.
 
 
> > >>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?
> > >
>
> >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
 
   <lot's of excellent complications deleted>

> This list of questions is by no means exhaustive.
> 

   Ok, let's *really* simplify it:

	Assume a single ship being attacked by 3 salvo missile groups
(standard
	SM's).	No enemy is within range to fire at any fighters
screening the
	ship.  No ADFC or any form of outside assistance is available.

	Which is going to shoot down more missiles:
		4 PDS or
		2 PDS and 1 fighter group screening?

   That should adequately simulate a missile attack on a ship
approaching the
 enemy.

  grant