RE: Fw: Carriers and other updates

As the one who ran that game, I agree, the 100 fighters were an AWSOME
site.

On a personal note, I too think that fighters have too low of a cost
compaired to ships. If you compare the cost of a single fighter (not
group)
to the cost of a single Class-1 beam.

Pro's for Fighter:
Effective Range over 2x class-1 beam (18" move + 6" range)
Same cost as class 1 beam.
Immunity from threshold checks (once launched)
Immunity from most weapons (class 2+ beams, torps, SML's, etc.)
Attack before main ship weapons
Same or heavier damage as class-1 beams (for Attack fighters)
Attacks more concentrated than class-1 beams (usually a ship does not
have 6
class-1 beams to fire)
Does NOT reqire the use of a Fire Control System
Cannot be the target of Needle Beam (once launched).

Con's for Fighter:
.5 mass more than class 1 beam (for hanger)
Limited number of shots (6 turns endurance)
Can be attacked by special weapons (PDAF, etc.)
Always attacked before can fire (PDAF, etc.)
Main ship on restricted movement 1st round employed (fighter launch).

The comparison is MUCH worse when comparing it to a small ship.

Pro's fighter group vs small ship (mass 9, md 6, ftl, average hull,
1xclass-1 beam, cost 30:
Faster exceleration
Greater maneuverability (can turn 180 deg. and move 18")
6 times the firepower.
Can absorb twice the damage.
Not subject to threshold checks for engine & core systems.
Cannot be wiped out in one shot from one weapon (the small ship could be
destroyed in 1 shot from a pulse torpedo, sml, or class 2+ beam at close
range). [granted, with re-rolls it is possible for a single PDAF to
destroy
a fighter group, but very unlikely).

---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft
---

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Keith Watt
Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 10:51
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Fw: Carriers and other updates

Beth, Schoon, and others -

Beth Fulton wrote:

> I haven't tried an in isolation case of "flight deck only" carrier vs
equal
> points, but in a more synthesised fleet they work very well. I have a
> carrier with a fragile hull and 14 hanger bays and little more and the
> system works well because its sits way way wwwwaaayyy back and never
even
> gets shot at usually as the opposition is concentrating on what's in
their
> face. Though I'll admit you've got to make sure it NEVER gets near the
line
> of battle though as it will go down fast if it gets any decent
attention.

I used a fleet similar to this at GZG-ECC, to extremely good effect
(though I have to admit, my real purpose was to demonstrate that
fighters are WAY too cheap, but more on that in a bit).   My fleet
consisted of (if I remember right):

3 Misner Class Fleet Carriers (167 MASS, 724 points ea.)
   - 3 squadrons attack fighters
   - 3 squadrons standard fighters
   - reflex field
   - 3 PDFC
   - Thrust 4

3 Hawking Class Corvettes (14 MASS, 50 points ea.)
   - 4 PDFC
   - 1 ADFC
   - Thrust 4

4 Penrose Class PT Boats (11 MASS, 39 points ea.)
   - 1 single-arc pulse torpedo
   - 1 fire control
   - Thrust 4

The reflex field is a nasty surprise for anyone who manages to get close
enough to the carriers to attack (by the time anyone gets close, the
fighters are all launched and - since the carriers have no weapons - the
field is up all the time).  The corvettes serve to protect against enemy
fighter and missile attacks (the battle group therefore has 24 PDF
available at any one time).  The PT boats are, as Beth recommends, to
harass the enemy  - a lucky shot can be very painful.  The fighters are
obviously the main punch, but the disadvantage here is that you really
only have 6 attacks, since the odds of getting the fighters refueled
before the battle ends are fairly small.  This still beats SML's
generally, though, I think...

Due to the particular scenario restrictions we were playing under, it
was important that I keep the carrier MASS under 200, but I did explore
going with fragile hulls, as Beth did, in order to increase the number
of bays.  Beth's philosophy (correct me if I'm wrong Beth!) is that if
the carriers ever get caught, they're dead.  Period.  Overall, I agree
with that, but if you allow use of the reflex field (and I wouldn't,
because of my hard-science bias), they actually have a good chance of
giving back as good as they get.  So being able to hang on in the fight
while the fighters (if necessary) are recalled is a good thing.  Added
to this was the fact that in the sims that I ran (me against me), more
fighters weren't really necessary - 108 fighters, half of them attack,
will decimate any enemy task force of comparable point-size, even if
they are fairly PDFC-heavy (as my target was).

And this is my real beef with fighters - they are way too cheap for the
power you get.	Understand, I'm an ex-navy flyer, so I -love- the
all-fighter carrier concept.  Arming carriers with big guns seems
exceptionally silly to me.  But the only -really- good defense against
massive air power is an equally-massive screen, and so FT becomes a
fighter game (which it doesn't simulate well) instead of a battleship
game.  My answer is to make fighters cost the same as a
comparably-design ship (no FTL, Thrust 6-8, and a single Class 1 beam),
because this is effectively what you're getting.

I have to say though, the sight of 100-plus fighters screaming toward
the enemy was an awesome one.. <g>

Just my thoughts...
Keith

P.S., If anyone's interested in the CCG-format ship control cards for
this task force, let me know and I'll upload them to the Exodus Project
site.

--
Univ. of Maryland Astronomy
http://www.ExodusProject.com