SV: Carrier and fighter questions

> Fighter Questions:
> 
> If a Carrier launches a heavy interceptor squadron and
> a torpedo-fighter squadron at the same time and flies
> them to the same target, who determines which squadron
> is targetted by PDAFs, ADAFs, C-Beams and other fighters?

The target's player determines which of his weapons will fire at which
fighter group. Whether or not he knows what type of fighter each group
is,
well... that depends a lot on the local house rules.
 
> Can a fighter group within range of several frigates target
> more than one of them?

Full Thrust page 15, under "FIGHTER ATTACKS": "All fighters in the Group
must engage the SAME target ship."

>  Obviously each of their targets
> would get to use their point defense against the whole
> fighter group, but splitting up a torpedo squadron to attack
> several low mass frigates is better than wasting half their
> torpedos!

Why do you send torpedo fighters against ships that can't have any
weapons
if they carry more than level-1 screens? Torpedoes are capital-killers
(...well, capital-hurters, at least...). Attack fighters are
escort-killers
- and normal fighters work well in this role too :-)

> I understand that some people play without the restriction
> of fighters to Capital ships.  Having done some of the numbers
> I'd like to weigh in against doing away with the restriction.
> Especially doing away with the restriction for Heavy Fighters!
> As a historical note, in WWII the smaller carriers were often
> armed with less powerful planes because the best fighters
> required longer runways.

<g> That limitation, fortunately, doesn't really exist for space
fighters... Look at the Starfuries in B5, for example - they seem to be
"heavy" at least when compared to the Raiders, and they don't have any
runway at all.

>  I don't know what sorts of extra
> logistical requirements the more expensive fighters need,
> but limiting them to Capital ships is important.

Why? In your game universe, maybe, but not very much so for FT play
balance
IMO.

> As I understand how fighters work, they get half their
> movement the turn they are launched, but they can attack
> that very turn.
> 
> Consider:  the Swarm Carrier
> Mass 18
> move 8
> 
> systems
> FCS
> Needle Beam
> PDAF
> fast-torpedo fighter squadron (or other fighter squadron)

Cost (with a fast torpedo fighter squadron): 149 points.

> A fighter group attacks targets within 6", right?  So the
> Swarm could hit a target 15" away from the end of its
> movement.
>
> Against no point defense this attack would do an average
> of 14 points of damage.

Should be 10.5 points - they hit at a roll of '4' or better (50%
chance),
and do on average 3.5 pts of damage. 6*0.5*3.5 = 10.5. An *DAF reduces
this
by, on average, 1.17 pts - and most of my destroyers have at least two
PDAF, bigger ships have more.

An Interceptor squadron (which costs only 40% of the fast torp squadron)
would _love_ to fight an enemy like this :-) (It doesn't have to be
fast,
as long as your ships don't move at too high speeds...)

> This is more damage than submunitions do at
> 12".	9 submunitions at 12" would do an average of
> 12 points.

Why _9_ submunitions, when the fighter group only uses _6_ mass? OTOH,
the
fighter bay and its squadron costs 50 pts, while the 9 SMPs are only 27
pts.

>  And unlike submunition equipped ships,
> the Swarms can do something after their first attack,
> namely refuel and rearm, as well as firing their Needle.

Possibly, depending on which arc the Needle beam points into - if it is
a
side-arc mount, it might be useful. If I had re-loading carriers, I'd
sure
as hell try to keep them far beyond 9 mu from the enemy ships... since
that
is pretty much guaranteed to be in range of each and every weapon the
enemy
has!

There aren't any printed re-loading rules, but I've seen several
floating
around on the 'net.
 
> Fleets would need to seriously up their anti-fighter defenses!

_Your_ fleets would need to seriously up their anti-fighter defences,
yes.
 
> There is of course the question of whether the Swarms would
> survive long enough to launch their fighters, but with 
> Thrust 8 they should only suffer one volley of A batteries
> at extreme range before they can launch.

Launch? Sure. But will the fighters return to re-load? <g>
...
> Fighters may get left behind some high speed combats, but
> there isn't much dodging a point blank launch.

Depends which fighter movement sequence you use. If you use the MT one
(p.10, fighters move BEFORE ships instead of after) you'll find the
fighters toned down quite a lot (especially if you're fighting fast
enemy
ships).

It depends even more on what _speeds_ you use. I often - nay, usually -
see
escorts flying around at speeds of 40 or higher; speed 20 for capitals
isn't unusual. You have to time your launch well to catch them, even
with
fast fighters. Torpedo fighters are better than others, though, since
they
don't have to (and don't want to) stay in range for long.

> As for how I got on this topic, I was trying to design an
> in-the-thick of it Carrier which would rearm its fighters
> during combat.  Unfortunately, the larger Carriers are slow
> and have launcher congestion.  So I started looking at
> Cruisers and Escorts.
> 
> Anyone have any ideas on how long it takes to reload and
> rearm fighters?

Not me. How long does it take to re-arm a figher on a wet-navy carrier?

> Does it make a difference what the mass  of the Carrier is?

Why should it? What matters is the size of the fighter bay, IMO.
...
>And on
> the not too infrequent occurences that a launch bay or a
> Swarm cruiser was destroyed, the extra cargo area would
> mean that they could still recover the fighters without
> blocking the launch bay.

If your house rules allow that, yes. It all depends on how you imagine
the
cargo hatches.
 
> By having in-the-thick-of-it Carriers to recover and rearm
> fighters, a fleet would have the option of keeping its fleet
> Carriers further back, not to mention spending less on defenses
> and escorts for those Carriers.

Put it like this: If you use the normal fighter movement rules (ie,
fixed
top speed for fighters), you  won't be able to use the tactics described
above very well against me. Even your fast fighters will have severe
problems to catch my ships - especially if they launch far away! The
exception is, of course, if you attack fixed positions (space stations
and
similar), which forces me to stand and fight - but if you threaten to do
that, I'll go straight for your fleet carriers instead. Yes, straight
into
the teeth of your fighters... but my ships will fire first, and they
have
longer range than 15 units :-)

> I'd like to point out that in terms of both cost and mass,
> Fleet Carriers are going to be more efficient in terms of
> total fighter weight.  However, the Swarms should have an
> advantage in terms of launching and recovering fighters.
> A non-ftl version of the Swarm could afford better anti-fighter
> defenses, more cargo area and some offensive power of its
> own.	Because of the amount of mass devoted to defense, a
> non-ftl version of the Swarm would have a great advantage.

Only in star system defence. They'd be pretty useless for attacks, since
they require tenders.

> Swarm II non-ftl version
> Mass 36
> move 8
> systems
> shield-3 (I forget if you can actually put Shield-3 on a Cruiser)

Any ship, as long as you have space enough.

> fighter squadron
> 3 Mass Cargo space
> A Beam PCS
> C-Beam PCS
> ADAF
> PDAF
> PDAF
> 
> Unless your enemy has Pulse-torpedos or submunitions in
> large quantities, this Cruiser is going to be tough to kill.

Or Nova Cannon, Railguns or Waveguns... Or missiles, of course <g>

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson

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