Re: [FT] SMLs and Banzai Jammers

From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>

>>The minimum change is a change in the tactics of the SM player. No new
rules
>>needed at all. Banzai Jammers only really shred the tactic of
unloading
all
>>salvoes against the big targets as soon as possible.

>That turns out not to be the case.  In our NI/IF battle, I couldn't
>have swept your missile-sponges in a reasonable time frame because I'd
>have had to kill at least two per capital target to have any chance of
>hitting the capitals (other than lucking out and dropping one squarely
>on target).

Let's take that combat example. IF had 2 BCs and a cruiser with a total
of
19 C2's, plus an escort with 2C3's.
A wave attack with closure to just under 24" would have been likely able
to
eliminate 9 or all 10 (depending on the number of FC's) of the NI escort
scouts, at the very least leaving gaping holes for the SM's to take. The
attacking force would have taken a beating - likely concentrated on one
of
the larger or the two smaller ships, (leaving the missile ships free to
close)	or the NI would have tried to fire through to the missile ships
(leaving the beams to close to close range). 

Or something else could have happened.

From: Alan E and Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au>

>...but combined with just a few escort cruisers, you can't sweep them
>without unloading 95% of your SMLs. The other 5% are lost along with
>your  missile carriers by the 5:1 beam superiority of the other side.

I guess I disagree. It depends how you go about it. Which would be
scenario
specific. If you brought a couple class 3 or even class 4 potshooters
along
and kept them at max range, you could slowly pick off the soaks before
closing distance. If you're SM equipped, chances are you're more
maneuverable and faster (like FSE) and can be the one to pick the time
when
the forces close.

> As for Granaatscherven, it's the use of 25-30pt corvettes (which
anyone
> can use) rather than purpose-built banzai jammers that worry me.

I rather use 18-21 point scouts.Cheaper and more infurating (yet more
vulnerable to sweeping).

> Just try a battle where one side has the FSE but no SMLs in the mags,
> the other side has only 75% of the points values (to simulate the loss
> of virtually the complete corvette force that was doing the jamming).
> That's 5 corvettes for _each_ BB. Darn few FSE ships have enough for 5
> rounds of fire, assuming none are shot down and all hit!
 
Such a battle would be no fun for the FSE, but I don't believe that that
situation is the necessary result of SML vs. Granaatscherven.

>> Jammers may be close to 100% proof vs.the hail mary dump
>> everything and run attack, but that kind of IMO cheesy attack
_should_ be
>> stoppable in its tracks. Force the SM player to think.

> Think about what?

About alternate tactics. Wave attacks, Fighter/SM mixes, Beam support.
Make
SM's a late punch system instead of a fast strike system. Losing the
ability
to obliterate an enemy at 29" with saturation SM's while he plinks at
you
with a few class 3's will only add challenge, terror, and enjoyment to
your
game.

>Without wishing to descend to a despicable "StrawMan" argument, IMHO
The
>same argument taken to its logical conclusion would be "Grade 4 Shields
>may be close to 100% proof vs attritive beam attacks, but that kind of
>attack should be stoppable in its tracks. Force the Beam User to
think."

Well, that is a straw man, since level 4 screens are not a real game
system
(and even level 3 screens were eliminated with the FB). On the other
hand,
class 2 screens do compromise a beam only fleet, and force the beam
player
to think about different ways to maximize her effectiveness while
minimizing
her risk.

> But I freely admit that you may have a superior intellect to my own
> (wouldn't be hard), and there's something obvious I'm missing. Please
> elucidate on the FSE's tactics now that 50% of their weaponry is gone
> (hey, I might actually learn something if it penetrates my poor thick
> skull).
 
I have no wish to disparage anyone's intelligence. Chances are you could
showme a thing or two about SM's I freely admit my arguments come at
least
in part from a personal dislike of SM's as a system. I have no desire to
see
them become more powerful in any way. That's my prejudice, so you can
take
my comments with the size grain of salt you deem appropriate.

>Personally, I think that a flock of unmanned drones that act as SML
>soaker-eppers could be best simulated by lots of variant (cheaper) PDS
>systems that can't be used against fighters.  But I digress.

That also sounds reasonable.

>It's too bad we're not physically located anywhere near each other, as
>I'd like to demonstrate my points via a game or two. I'm sure you could
>teach me something, but I think I'd convince you.

Possibly. My NI vs. IF game with Laserlight confirmed to me how much I
dislike SM's though. It's unfortunate that the nation I've chosen to
develop
has such an SM-heavy primary adversary.

Noam