Prev: Re: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada Next: Re: [LONG] Unified Fighter Proposal UFP Lite

Re: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

From: Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@t...>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:24:31 +0200
Subject: Re: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

Leszek Karlik wrote:

>As for the fighter problem - since points are an artificial game
>construct that has no relationship to reality whatsoever, then the
>NPV/CPV of fighters should be determined using the total amount of
>fighters in the entire fleet, using a sliding scale.

This has been tested; it doesn't work. The problem is that the value of 
fighters doesn't depend on the raw number of fighters in the fleet, but
on 
the ratio between the number of fighters and the amount of enemy 
anti-fighter weapons - so unless your opponent is prepared to tell you
what 
his anti-fighter armament consists of prior to the battle, you can't 
determine the value of your own fighters.

(So why isn't this a problem for *ships*? Well, to some extent it is - 
that's why PD-heavy fleets suffer against PD-light non-fighter fleets -
but 
it is far smaller than for fighters. A ship's combat power is a product 
between its firepower and its survivability; against ships the firepower

comes from its anti-ship weapons, while against fighters it comes from
the 
anti-fighter weapons. The anti-ship weapons usually make up a much
bigger 
part of the ship's total armament than the anti-fighter weapons do, so 
replacing X Mass of anti-ship weapons with anti-fighter ones or vice
versa 
will almost always change the anti-fighter armament (and thus the ship's

anti-fighter combat power) by a much greater proportion than it changes
the 
anti-ship armament (and anti-ship combat power).)

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@telia.com

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

Prev: Re: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada Next: Re: [LONG] Unified Fighter Proposal UFP Lite