Re: FT3 rules and SMs

(Warning, lots of rambling on FT3 fleet and ship designs follow)

With the old missiles I used to fire missiles against an enemy fleet
that was closing and then turn in the same turn to get away.  A lot
of tactics I have developed for games where the objective of both
players and both fleet designers is to attack the enemy fleet.

Not every fleet is designed for a space superiority mission.
With a rear mounted SML and a huge magazine you could have
a ship designed to deter pirates and commerce raiders.	It
would be a good weapon for a super-stealthed surveillance ship
whose job was to get information and get away.	The effective
range of Salvo Missiles versus an opponent who is attempting to
close is _huge_.  And any attempt by your pursuers to dodge
just buys you more time to escape.  Especially with vector movement.

An interesting scenario might involve a large patrol force coming
across a stationary surveillance ship and having to destroy it before
it gets far enough from the planet to jump out.  You might want a
GM to rule on how long it takes to come out of powered down stealth
mode, or how close the patrols scenario determined vector will come
to the stealthed ship etc...

I seen and built a lot of fleets with an extremely heavy forward
armament and not much else.  The theory was that it would be better
to do as much damage as possible during closing than to waste points
and mass spreading railguns or pulse torpedos through various arcs,
as that flexibility would only help _after_ the initial clash did
about 1/6 my mass in structure points of damage.

I having been having some trouble working out proper strategy for
the new higher level beam weapons.  Level-2 beam weapons are quite
efficient, especially with closing velocities in excess of 12".
They do damage equal to Level-3 beam weapons in the 12-24" range
and their 180 arcs offer a lot of versatility in allowing
concentration of power against a few enemy ships.  Versus an
equal sized fleet in an engagement in which neither can withdraw
I'd prefer Level-2 beam weapons.

It is very difficult to simultaneously maintain the range _and_ force
an engagement.	Suppose I have a fleet with largely Level-3 beam
batteries:
In order to force an engagement the majority of my fleet has to have
a higher thrust than my opponent.  Lets suppose that we've spent
the extra points and mass to have some flexibility of arc.  As
the fleet is designed to close to engage, our 3-arc Bat-3s face
forward.  Suppose the enemy we were pursuing suddenly turns to
close?

In order to reopen the range we would have to turn away from our
opponent, giving him a free shot.  So counting on a long engagement
in the 24-36" is silly.

If you could have an ambush at zero relative speed, then you might
have time to get off a few unanswered shots, but as a fleet superiority
tactics, Bat-3s and Bat-4s don't seem to be a good buy.

Here are the few circumstances where having complete range superiority
would really help:
1)  Attacking a star base or other stationary target
2)  Blockading a planet (you get some extra time before your targets
can build enough speed to get through your fire zone)
3)  Attacking or defending against smaller forces with the minimum
of casualties.	For those times you outweigh your opponent 6 to 1
and don't want even the paint scratched on your ships.	This is
also a psychological thing.  The potential to inflict 50% casualties
before any damage can be done in return is a good deterent for
swarms of small SML rack craft.
4)  Covering the _rear_ arc.  Invest in good sensors to find out if
you have good odds for the fight, and run away otherwise.  Of course,
it helps to have fairly high thrust ships for this tactic.

At the range at which high level beam weapons have superiority they
also do very little damage.

Assume that roughly the same amount of mass is spend on Armor and Hull
as weapons, an 8 Mass weapon does 1d6 at its optimum range.  Assuming
no shields that is an average of 5/6 of a point (using rerolls of 6's).
Against an equal sized fleet you'd destroy 10.4% per round.  Now,
for various reasons the mass on Armor and Hull will probably exceed
actual weapons mass, for one thing, armor is cheaper per mass than
most weapons, especially for Carriers.	This also neglects the cost
of spending per for reasonable arcs.

% of mass on Engines, Cost per Damage Point Cost per Mass of systems
0 (Space Station)		  3		       4 or 5
10 (SDS weapons platform)	  3.33		    4.33 or 5.33
20 (FTL Capable weapons platform) 3.75		    4.75 or 5.75
30				  4.29		    5.29 or 6.29
40				  5		    6	 or 7
50 (FTL Capable Thrust 8)	  6		    7	 or 8

In order to add 5 structure points to a 50% engine ship you
spend 5 points hull, 10 points for the armor, 5 point for the hull
for the extra engines and 10 points for the extra engines.
System mass is typically 3 or 4 points per mass of system,
except for Carrier which pay 3 points per mass of bays and then
have to pay even more for the fighters.

Structure points are cheaper for low engine mass ships, but
the ratio evens out for higher engine percentage ships.  I would
therefore expect that the lower the engine percentage, the
greater the remaining percentage will be structure and armor.
If a fleet designer decides that 60% Armor and Structure is
appropriate to a Space Station then Thrust 8 FTL capable
ships in that fleet are likely to be between 20 and 25%
Structure and Armor by mass.

This is meant only as a comparison of ships or space stations with
similar armament mixes.  A fighter-group based Space Station will
be likely to have a higher percentage of Structure and Armor than
a fast FTL-Carrier in the same nation's fleet.

How much Point Defense Systems should I buy?
In my opinion, buying point defenses only make sense if it will
save the ship.	A ship with less than 3 structure points has
no business buying point defenses before armor.  Versus a fighter
group, which is more likely to save the ship, a point defense
system or a point of armor?

My theory of point defense:
Buy enough to matter or don't buy any.
Buy enough to justify an Area Defense Firecontrol, ie, >6
The best point defense is to kill the enemy first, Mass spent
on point defense for a fleet should be less than 1/4 the
amount spent on Structure or on Weapons, (not systems, Weapons).
When in doubt, go for flexibility and buy Bat-1s.
Do a comparison of the effectiveness of an Interceptor group
flying screen versus 6 PDS and an Area Defense Firecontrol.

Interceptor Group
Can be used at a greater range
Can be used offensively against enemy screen
Harder to target by enemy ships
50% more effective

ADAF+ 6 PDS
Can be assigned during fighter/SML phase
Cheaper
Doesn't run out or have to be retrieved
Time to readiness in an ambush, immediate, versus time to launch and
then position screen.

I'll have to re-read the section on screening to see who chooses
which attacking squadron engages the screen.  This could be an
advantage for the PDS/ADAF system.

Michael Sandy