Re: [FT] Fighter thoughts

> 
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> 
> >  Actually, explaining anything to Lord Vader is potentially
unpleasant.  :-)
> 
> Exactly. It was nice knowing you, Grant Needa...
>
  :-)

 
> >Really though, the SW universe is a terrible one for this discussion.
> 
> So is the BattleStar Galactica universe. So is the Space: Above And
Beyond 
> universe. So are the Babylon 5 and Renegade Legion universes, and any
other 
> fighter-using SF universe I've seen to date where the background
physics 
> are not derived from this particular game mechanic. (In fact, I
strongly 
> suspect that the only SF universe which would *not* be a terrible one
for 
> this particular discussion is one you yourself has created based on
the 
> game mechanics, and where your own game mechanics-derived background
PSB is 
> therefore in force :-/ )
> 
   Ya know, I thought so too, but now I'm wondering.  If you give the
fighter
 the ability to move farther with cef, it might be possible to model any
of
 these universes just by juggling the number of cef a fighter has.  It
wouldn't
 be exact, but nothing will be except shredding the whole thing and
starting
 from scratch each time.  hmmm....  :-)

> > >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?
> 
> You are misremembering, though it doesn't matter for the discussion. 
> Fighters have primary moves of 24 or 36 mu depending on whether or not

> they're Fast, and a secondary move of 12 mu no matter what type they
are.
> 
   Thanks.  I looked about in old discussions, but couldn't find it
before I
 posted.  

> >Now, the only way for a ship to outrun a fighter right beside it is
to be 
> >accelerate past a move of 30 mu.
> 
> Past 36 or 48 mu/turn. That's seven or nine turns of acceleration from
zero 
> by an NAC or FSE heavy cruiser straight out of FB1; less if the ship
is 
> already moving... usually about one turn's worth of accelleration if
I'm 
> flying it :-/
> 
   From a dead stop (admittedly rare) the fighter is going to run out of
cef
 several turns before the ship it's attacking or screening accelerates
away
 from it.  It seems like the fighters in the game are designed to be
combat
 effective (ie burn through their cef) for only about 3 turns with the
beta
 rules.  I would consider that 3 turn "combat effectiveness" to be the
measure
 of how long a fighter should be able to keep up with a ship.  Why
should a 
 fighter be able to stay with a ship for much longer than it could
actually 
 fight the ship?

> >That means it's got one big honkin' engine or else it it was hauling
extra 
> >fast to begin
> >  with.
> 
> Extra fast? Personally I consider 30-35 mu/turn to be a pretty normal 
> cruising speed for thrust-6 ships, but that's me :-/
> 
   Now, from the AAR's I've seen on the web, I don't think people are
flying
 that fast.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Anyone want to step in with their average
 speeds?  
   At 1 mu = 1", you're going to flying off the edge of the average
gaming
 table in 2 turns at that speed.  Even with moving maps, divergent
courses at
 those speeds are going to need extra table space very quickly indeed.
   Perhaps the best idea is to set your fighter's primary move nearer to
the
 normal starting speed of a ship.  Then they can't leave each others
envelopes
 quite so fast.

> >In the first case, shouldn't a giant engine *be* able to outrun a 
> >small  fighter?
> 
> Outrun a fighter which itself consists mostly of engine, and has far
less 
> mass for said engine to push? Very doubtful IMO, unless you're talking

> about much longer distances and time scales than you get in a tactical
FT 
> battle.
> 
   If they both worked with the same physics set, I would agree, but
they 
 don't seem to.  In any case, I would also argue that the fighter has
much less
 reaction mass to push *with* as well.	Unless there is some reason for
a
 fighter's engines to be much more efficient than a ships, then I would
think
 that it's very reasonable for a ship to be faster than a fighter.  A
fighter
 does have some space/size restrictions, while a ship really has none. 
A
 ship can be 99% engine much more easily than a fighter.

> >In the latter case, it doesn't seem like a short sprint to me.
> 
> Seven turns of movement from standstill for an NAC or FSE heavy
cruiser 
> still looks like a pretty short sprint to me, I'm afraid. Particularly
in 
> stern chases (like the example you provided below), of course.
> 
    I still see it as more than twice the combat effective duration of a

  fighter.  Heck, how many actual games take much more than seven turns?

> >I mean the rule as it is now means that a large ship can *never*
outrun a 
> >small fighter,
> 
> Correct; and your original proposal also means essentially this same
thing 
> - a large ship may be able to outrun SOME of the fighters, but your
concept 
> means that it can never ever outrun ALL of them no matter how fast it
flies.
> 
   I concede the point.  I guess my main problem there is the idea of a
5 man
 scout ship towing along 36 one man fighters at no cost to fighter nor
ship.
 It's probably just my own sense of the ridiculous getting tickled,
where 
 limiting the number of fighters a ship could pull mollified it some. 
:-)

> Your second concept - burn CEF whenever the fighter is moving faster
than X 
> mu/turn - avoids this feature, but has an interesting feature of its
own: 
> it explicitly forces the fighters to burn fuel to *maintain* an
achieved 
> "higher-than-normal" velocity even if they're moving in a straight
line. 
> Air resistance in deep space, or something? :-)
> 
   Well, that's built into the rules already.  This would just give the
fighter
 a way to go faster when the situation warranted.

> Over to the PDS-vs-fighters comparison:
> 
> >Ok, let's *really* simplify it:
> >
<< lot's of post deleted for space sake >>
> 
> The 4 PDSs fire 4 dice at the missiles; the PDS/fighter combo fires 8
dice 
> - ie. exactly twice as much. If you only look at the number of
missiles 
> shot down, it should be pretty trivial to determine which of the two
is 
> more effective.
> 
> However, the total *cost* (ie., including the cost of the basic hull 
> structure, engines etc. supporting the systems) of those 4 PDSs is
only 
> 20-25 pts whereas the total cost of 2 PDSs + 1 fighter group is 70-80
pts 
> (or even more, for some designs). In other words, the PDS/fighter
combo 
> shoot down *twice* as many incoming missiles as the 4 PDSs, but it
costs at 
> least *three times* as many points to buy. Suddenly the choice isn't
quite 
> as clear-cut any more, particularly if you have a limited amount of
points 
> to buy your ships with.
> 
     Quite true, although you can probably buy one less fire control
that 
   would normally be dedicated to the PDS as well.

> If you add some FCSs and/or ADFCs to the 4 PDSs, their total cost goes
up 
> quite fast - which pushes the balance further towards the PDS/fighter 
> combo. If you add in anything that could shoot your fighters down
before 
> your fighters can attack the incoming missiles, the PDS/fighter combo
no 
> longer gets its original 2:1 firepower advantage over the 4 PDSs,
which 
> pushes the balance the other way instead.
> 
    I wonder.  What can attack fighters when you're 12 mu from the enemy
ship?
  How much damage potential do they lose by not shooting at the ship
itself?

>  From Grant's later posts in this thread:
> 
> >BDN's and SDN's frequently have 4+ PDS and 1 or more groups of
> >fighters.  They could well be better off dropping the PDS and adding
another
> >fighter group.
> 
> As you can see above, doing this would also increase these ships'
points 
> cost a fair bit.
> 
> >The negative is that the enemy can shoot up your missile/fighter
defenses, the
> >increased mass (not that big a deal on the larger ships),
> 
> The increased *mass* isn't that big a deal. The increased *cost* can
be 
> quite significant however.
> 
    Yeah, I can see that.

> >and the potential of running out of cef.
> 
> That's a pretty damn high potential, unless the battle ends quickly
:-/
> 
   True.  Still, I'm wondering how many rounds of really effective
anti-missile
 or fighter fire is needed in the average combat.  Do most missile users
run
 out of their large volleys after 3 turns?

> >The positive is [snip a number of true positives] no vulnerability to

> >threshold checks, and fire directed at your defenses is fire *not* 
> >directed at your ship.
> 
> "No vulnerability to threshold checks" is a pure red herring: fire
directed 
> at your defending fighters *destroys* (cannot be restored by damage
control 
> parties) one "PDS equivalent" (ie., fighter) per beam hit inflicted, 
> instead of *damaging* (can be restored by damage control) on average
1-2 
> PDSs in the first threshold check after some 20-30 beam hits (for the
FB1 
> BDNs and SDNs that is; for custom designs these numbers will of course
vary 
> quite a bit).
> 
> Similarly the fact that fire directed at your defending fighters isn't

> directed at your ship is also a bit of a red herring: while your
*ship* 
> doesn't risk losing any weapons to threshold checks as long as the
enemy 
> concentrates on the fighters, your *fleet as a whole* loses one beam
die's 
> worth of offensive firepower for each beam hit on the fighters.
> 
   Yeah, but if he/she is spending firepower on what you're using for
defensive
 firepower, I would think you are automatically getting more firepower
against
 his ships than he is against yours.  In effect, he's spending fire on
shooting
 at your PDS (the fighters) with no chance of hitting hull.  On top of
that, 
 he's just lost any extra damage each hit would do beyond the first
point.	
 Meanwhile your weapons are aimed at his hull and are doing their max
damage
 potential.  I don't think that's going to be a good trade off for the 
 opponent.  Would you shoot at a PDS when all you could damage was the
PDS
 itself?   

> (Generally speaking, you seem to be thinking in terms of one single
ship at 
> a time. Unless your entire fleet actually consists of only one single
ship, 
> this approach has a rather large numbers of pitfalls - you need to
look at 
> the entire fleet as a whole to avoid them.)
> 
    Well, it's primarily because an entire fleet is just too complicated
to
  analyze.  If you don't simplify it somewhat, it's too hard.  What
works for
  a single ship versus an equal point count of ships should scale
roughly to
  entire fleets.  It's not exact, but it's a lot more manageable.

> > >PDS and fighters definetly, but just fighters...eeek.
> >
> >Don't they typically exceed the number of available of PDS as well?
> 
> On a single ship, yes. In an entire fleet, usually not (though of
course it 
> depends on the exact fleets used).

   I would think that if points were equal on both sides, it wouldn't
make too
 much of a difference between a ship vs ship battle and a fleet versus
fleet
 battle.

   In any case, this has gotten to be a most interesting discussion. 
:-)

  grant