Re: Realistic Fleet sizes

Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 DragonProm@aol.com wrote:
> > << I may be wrong here...but I think the US has close to 14 carrier
> >  battle groups...thats carrier and support ships.  Although that 14
> >  does seem a little high. I am remembering something my history
> >  proffesor said.  Maybe its only about 6 or 7. >>
> 
> I don't think modern fleets are a good benchmark. See below.
> 
> > Yep, quite impressive, esp. for an German like me.
> > When ya hear the carrier xy was send to Z, alwas means an TF around
10-to
> > 20 ships were send out, carriers never go alone.
> 
> True these days...
> 
> > We in germany only have 3 or 4 Frigates plus half a douzen DD's or
so.
> 
> But how many warships did you have in 1915?
> 
> I think fleet sizes 1900-1950 are *much* better for benchmarks for
> a couple of reasons:
> 
> a) There are only two real (surface) fleets in the world today.
Everyone
> else doesn't even begin to compare. How's that for a boring setup?
> 
> b) There is substantial technology difference: Namely vanilla FT does
> *not* have anything comparable to long range aircraft or nuclear subs,
> both of which greatly affect modern fleet composition.
> 
> c) The colonial era, and the naval requirements it brought, is
currently
> over.
> 
> As a sidenote, why do carriers in FT always have support ships around?
> Try this for size:
> 
> Two standard fleet carriers meet. They send out their fighters.
> Each fighter scores an average 1/3 pts. of damage vs. a Sc-2 ship per
> turn. Considering the 3 turn combat endurance, we get a projected ONE
> point of damage.
> 
> Each CV has 36 fighters. Even completely ignoring various defenses,
> that's a projected 36 points of damage.
> 
> CV's have 49... unless you get lucky and knock out a shield, the
result
> will be a pointless stand-off.
> 
> That's what has always irked me about carriers, especially in one-off
> battles: You usually can't hurt them fast enough to stop them
launching
> fighters, and after they have launched, they're still very durable but
> nothing else.  Ergo, it makes no sense to shoot at carriers at all
(except
> in campaigns, or "mopping up").
> 

you know how to fix thay.... build all your carriers on a merchant hull
make up some psb and a house rule to explian it...

i have noticed a similar prolbem with escorts.	they get shot up or
destroyed pretty bad in most battles, solely because these battles are
one-off games, its a lot easier to kill a destroyer than it is to knock
of an SDN, so most players looking for a body count, go for destroyers
and work their way up the food chain.  wheb it seems more logical that
everybody go gunning for the SDN on the basis that it helps the war
effort a lot more to belly up a SDN over a destroyer...

oh well

Chris pratt
valen10@flash.net