Re: Limiting number of fighters per target - was RE: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada
From: "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@c...>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 14:51:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Limiting number of fighters per target - was RE: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada
> From a coordination point of view, with a volume of space 523 cubic
kilometers (sphere with a radius of 5km) it seems imminently
unreasonable that you couldn't cram 36, 72 or even 100+ fighters through
that space in a given turn and guarantee that they won't collide.
> Here is the basis for that conclusion:
<< Some excellent figuring deleted>>
> Even allowing for the volume of the target craft (probably not more
than a few cubic km's even for a large carrier (Star Destroyers excepted
as they are ships with km's of length and huge volume) and perhaps a
"no-survival zone" of one km from the target that no fighter could
survive, you still have several thousand possible choices of flight
paths that are guaranteed to not cross each other.
> In addition, this does not include the idea of longer range stand-off
weapons that allow a fighter to just barely get into range and doesn't
acutally have to enter the critical 5km sphere. There are many more
possible flight paths that simply intersect as a tangent to the critical
sphere that allows for the firing of weapons without having to enter.
> A note that a 5km is well within range of modern guns that have to
deal with gravity and air-resistance. I would hope that in the fuure,
the technology of weapons would be greater in space than their current
Of course, there are several factors that you should consider that
reduce the fighter flight paths.
1) Velocity of the target. If we insist on applying "reality",
the target velocity is non-trivial for figuring where the
can attack from.
2) What volume of space do fighters need to maneuver in to make
so hard to hit? Straight line flight paths with modern
systems would result in vast numbers of dead fighters.
3) What kind of flight path does a fighter need to achieve a
firing solution? Do you need to be pointed right at the
order to fire those energy weapons? Do you have to fire
shots, or just one energy blast? How long do you need to be
danger zone to get a good firing solution for your missiles?
4) How do PDS effect your ability to approach? PDS "effective"
may be the same as fighter attack range, but it's entirely
that shipboard PDS are firing for quite some time as "area
before the fighters reach effective range.
5) Does a fighter need to be closer than 5 km for any reason?
a fighter doesn't carry enough power to fire effective shots
range. Maybe it needs to get closer to get a good targeting
for "weak spots" on the target. Maybe even fighter based
need to be close to find weak spots.
I'm just saying that there are *lot's* of ways to PSB limitations on
attacks, and the PSB's that say there should be no limits are every bit
setting specific as PSB's that say there should. The bottom line
whether it makes for a fun and useful rule or not, not the
> I think the real issue is what flavor are you trying to capture:
> WWI aircraft - Planes are roughly equal but surprise and individual
> WWII aircraft - planes vary widely in quality, speed and armnament,
but individual skill still matters
> Post-korea to modern - planes are roughly similar in physical
qualities, but technology matters most. Individual pilot skill is
secondary to the use of technology. (i.e. it's not how well you can
pilot the plane, but use your radar to get a lock-on for a kill).
> You will be hard pressed to find a single rule set that will fit all
three types of simulation and work well with all three.
I agree. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there should be
options to help players simulate different settings.