Re: Targeting Missiles

	Of the 5 blokes who regularly play FT at our club I'm the only
one that
consistently uses carriers (if fact at the moment I'm the only that uses
them at all). I've always loved torpedo fighters and mine have developed
quite a reputation, hence the house rules about fighter defences since
they
aren't happy with C batteries as anti fighter weapons (which suits me).
We
generally use ship designs straight out of the book so fighters aren't
totally ineffective but now you have to use "combined arms" tactics to
make
them work at all (gone are the days when 6 heavy torpedo bombers could
fly
into the centre of an enemy fleet and take out a superdread, sigh). The
usual mix of fighters I use for a fleet carrier is an interceptor, 2
heavy
fighters, 2 heavy torpedo fighters and either a heavy attack or another
heavy torpedo. The other blokes are now mounting heavy fighters on their
dreads which cuts back on the effectiveness of the interceptors. 'Might
have to make them heavy as well.

	Tony.
	twilko@ozemail.com.au

At 01:35 23/04/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Tony Wilkinson wrote:
>> 
>>	   The mates that I play FT with really don't have a problem
with
batteries
>> not be able to shoot missiles which we all assumed were about the
same size
>> as a fighter. What we did do is allow ADAF's and PDAF's to attack any
>> target within their range.
>
>>	   The side effect has been that this has rendered fighters
almost
totally
>> inefective against capitals and tight flotillas.
>
>Oh, I dunno, I did reasonably well at Cancon with a 2-CV and 1-CVL
>fleet. The trick is to take a reasonable mix of fighters, not just
>bog-standard ones. 
>
>Consider: the traditional USN Aircraft mix has been: 2 Fighter
>Squadrons, 2 Attack Squadrons, and a Torpedo Squadron. These days, it's
>2 F-14 Fighters, 2 F-18 Fighter-Bombers, and 1 A-6 Intruder Heavy
>Bomber.
>
>I had 2 Dogfighters, 2 Heavy fighters, 2 Torpedo fighters on each CV,
>and 2 Heavy  and 2 Torpedos on the CVL. Basically, the Heavy Fighters
>strip away the screen while the Torpedo bombers hit the Capitals. 72
>incoming fighters means he can't get all of 'em. You DO take losses
>though, heavy ones. But with enough fighters, you can saturate the
>defences. Take half as many, and none will get through, it's very much
>an "all or nothing" situation.
>
>Given the points/mass costs for ADAFs and PDAFs though, it's reasonable
>to have them shooting at anything within range. As well as being
>simpler.
>
>One thing that may make things simpler still is to treat Missiles as
>"Missile Swarms" of 6 fighter-like things, using all fighter rules,
with
>the exception that if they fire, either in dogfight or at a ship, they
>evaporate. This makes them much like the salvoes of Styxes, Harpoons
etc
>of today. It also means you can have fewer rules.
> 
>-- 
>aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
>| Alan & Carmel Brain|      xxxxx	 Improve his shining tail?
>| Canberra Australia |  xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
> abrain@cs.adfa.oz.au	o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo	oo oo	  oo  
>		     By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
>
>
>