Re: FTFB- After Action Report/Newbie questions (longish :-) )

Jef Addley wrote:

First of all, remember that the FB is a later product than MT, so if
there is any conflict between the two FB supercedes MT.

> Fred wants his CV's to launch 4 table lengths away from combat, 

<g> Sure. Which of my fleets are you going to attack - the decoy ones
consisting of weasel boats and a couple of CEs, or the one consisting of
high-thrust cruisers...? <g> I've done this (and have it done to me)
enough times to stop using fragile-hulled carriers. There's a very good
reason why the FB carriers are the best protected ships in the book...

> In addition it appears that fighters in penny packets are
> not very effective.

Correct. Exactly as it should be, IMO. Indeed, I can't think of any
other
space combat game (or naval game, either - but I've only played a couple
of those) where penny-packet fighter/bomber attacks are effective.
 
> In the Second Battle we had a Heavy ship Force on one side, and light
> forces and one of the standard NAC carriers on the other.  Massed area
> point defence smashed the fighters; the Escorts got killed before they
> got to effective range.  Again it seemed as if fighters must be massed
> and that big ships are king.

Too few missiles, it seems... and too few needle beams and pulse torpedo
launchers, as well <g>

> On to Sundays engagement.
[snip]
> Chris fired at the 8 Missiles with all 8 Point
> defence and 6 class 1 Batteries.  As per More Thrust we hit these big
> missiles only on a 6.

The PDS section in FB supercedes the missile interception rules in MT,
so
a PDS has a 4-6 chance to kill an MT missile. The rule doesn't specify
salvo or MT missiles - it just says "scores of ... 4 and 5 kill ONE
missile or fighter, while a 6 kills two ...", and the term "missile"
includes both Salvo Missiles and MT missiles. However, each MT missile
is
a separate target so a single PDS can't kill more than one of them in a
turn.

> Now this is our first problem.  Fred read this rule as meaning that
> Chris had to roll 3 times on every system, including Core systems,
twice
> on 5-6 breakdown, once on 4-6 breakdown.  

This isn't quite correct. You roll thrice per system, including Core
systems, but the Core system rolls are +1 to the treshold number as
usual
(ie, you get two rolls of 6 and one on 5-6 against them). 'Course, the
Core System rules are even more optional than all the rest <g>

It seems that his ship only had level-1 screens (at most). That does
hurt
a lot against EMP missiles, that's true. 

The EMP missiles were written for the old design rules where level-3
screens were allowed (and *very* common). Since the FB limited the
maximum screen level to 2, you may want to change the EMP missile damage
table to 

"1-3: No effect 
4-5: Treshold check on 5-6 
6: Treshold check on 4-6; 

Reduce the die roll with 1 for each level of screens used."

> One Crippled CE and one Crippled DH carrier survived the fight.  But
it
> was won by the EMP missiles.

> Our main problem revolves around their use.  As it stands they appear
to
> be game winning system.  For 238 points on a fragile hulled DH 15 of
> them can be launched into a fleet engagement and probably shutdown two
> capital ships. 

*If* they manage to hit them, yes. Using higher thrust ratings and the
FB
PDS and fighter screen rules, this isn't quite as easy as it was in your
game. It was a problem in MT (or, rather, their cousins the standard
ship-killer missiles were).

> At the moment I am leaning towards No core systems being affected. 
Same
> logic as no core systems affected by needle beams, buried too deep.

Sounds OK. The entire Core Systems rule is completely optional, and I
prefer not to use it at all <shrug>
 
> Other suggestions [against MT missiles] are Point defence as normal,
Chris's 
> position, i.e. a 4,5,6 kills a missile.

It already does under the FB rules :-)

> And of course, no speed 2 ships would make
> targeting within 3" more difficult.

Yes. 

> What have you done with this?  Has Jon commented before? Maybe this is
> an unresolved problem for Fleetbook 2 or FT version 3 rules?

No. It is an at least partly resolved problem in the Fleet Book <g> All
of the MT weapons (except possibly the fighter variants) need more work
before FTIII is published, but the MT missiles have already been toned
down a huge lot in the FB.

> On a more general question, Why would you build ships faster than
Thrust 2? 

You had missiles used to (very) good effect against you - you've already
noted that higher thrust ratings make missile targetting more difficult
-
and *still* ask this question?!? 

A thrust-2 ship has *no* possibility of dodging an SM salvo, so it has
to
rely on point defences. It can dodge MT missiles if they launch far
enough away and the missile player makes a mistake early on, but even
that is difficult. High thrust = ability to dodge missiles, forcing the
missile user to spread his salvoes to be sure of a hit - and this of
course dilutes the salvoes, making them easier for point defences and
fighter screens to stop. High thrust also helps quite a lot if you want
to disengage, or stop your enemy from disengaging - which may or may not
be important, depending on the victory conditions. 

> What are your thoughts?  How do you restrict, if you do, the chosen
> Thrust ratings? 

I don't. Indeed, with the FB design system I've stopped limiting the
maximum thrust to 8 as well. The Mass cost is quite sufficient IMO.

> Does anyone else go Fred's route with fragile hulled
> carriers and 14 squadrons?

Only once, and with the same result as he got. There's a reason why the
US carriers in WWII were so heavily armoured... and it applies in FT as
well :-/ Even more so in FT, I think.

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@nacka.mail.telia.com

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