Re: [FT] SMLs and Banzai Jammers (long)

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

>> As long as you wiggle your behind a little and have weapons covering
>> the AP and AS arcs, you're quite able to hurt any pursuers.

>...just not hurt them _much_. Let's see, you get to fire maybe 4 SMs in
>a turn from a 3000 pt fleet, and I have 20 PDs and ADAFs.
>Feel free to empty your mags in this way.
I wouldn't waste my SM's at that time. I'd be plinking your Jammers away
with class 3's, or waiting for my armored class 2 hedgehogs to dive in
and
blow a hole in them.

> And on a floating table + cinematic movement, assume the pursuers
> retreat. As soon as you get to 30 speed or so, your SMs become
> completely useless, as they have a 24" range, so even if fired at
> maximum range from a point coincident with the enemy ship, it bursts
> behind you.

Assume they retreat. If you're attacking a position, or trying to occupy
a
space it's your's for the taking. If you're defending a position, you've
just succeeded in your goal, at least for the time being. Basically you
win
without firing a shot. What could be bad?

> Getting back to the Great Debate, here's my central thesis:

> a) Banzai Jamming is a 100% defence against SMs, when combined with
some
ADAFs and PDs
Disagree. There are demosntrable methods for killing jammers. It merely
forces an alteration of the SM-only or SM-first strategy. BJ's may
defeat an
all-or-nothing 1-shot SM assault, a game which would be pretty boring
for
both players.

b) This is a Bad Thing
Disagree. Preventing boring games is never a bad thing.

c) SMs are too powerful if Banzai Jamming is completely removed, All
other
things being equal.
SM's are balanced, (barely) as is IMO.

>Conclusion:
>I want a mechanism that causes minimal change, and reduces but doesn't
>eliminate BJ.

Answer: A class 3 or 4 beam. Class 4's are inefficient at close range
(3's
are a little better, but loose the long range 12"). Both have utility
vs.
ships other than BJ's, Both can reduce effectiveness of BJ coverage.

>I've had some comments that a) isn't true. I remain convinced it is, as
>it appears do the majority of contributors. What I would like is for
>anyone who disagrees to demonstrate via a game how, with an FSE fleet,
>they would defeat this tactic.

FSE FB ships,as published, don't solve the problem the way I would. If I
were forced to use close to FB designs, I'd swarm the BJ line with
Ibizas or
San Miguels modified to have 2 firecons, and trade corvettes for
corvettes
before I unload SM's. My first choice would be a force with some Milans
and
Suffrens modified to class 3 long range support. Not having tried it I
can't
say how successful they would be, but I suspect it would have a
reasonable
shot.

> I've had some comments that b) isn't true, that without such a 
> defence the NSL (slow, unmanouverable) is disadvantaged. 

Well, I argue b) isn't true, but not so much on behalf of NSL, which can
do
well vs. SM's if they bring along enough Kronprinz's. I argue that it's
not
a bad thing preventing blowout games - especialy in one-off scenarios as
opposed to campaigns, where circumstance _should_ conspire to have more
lopsided battles than straight fights. 

> I've had no comments about c) being untrue (AFAIK). Certainly I've
found
> that although SMs require a lot od skill to use, you get better than a
> 50% yield in fleet actions, and often 100% will find _some_ worthwhile
> target within 6", even if not the ship you were aiming at.  

The potentially most devastating FT player is one with the intuition to
place SM's properly the lion's share of the time. I dread one day having
to
face him/her across a table, whether or not I have my Sheir/Karakau
jammers
with me. Such a player would make the SM's look horrendously unbalanced.
I
think they're barely balanced with players with "merely" reasonable
intuition.

> But seriously, I guess the only way of convincing you is for you to
try
> using an FSE fleet vs a competent opponent who uses the above tactic.
If
> despite your best efforts you lose in exactly the way described above,
> you should be convinced. And if perchance you should win, or even make
> it close to an even fight, please tell me and the list how the
> farnarckle you did it!

I would not want to use an unmodified FSE fleet vs. a fleet with
granaatscherven support. Well, I _might_ give it a try if I had a swarm
of
Ibizas. Howwever I don;t play SM fleets because I _don't_ have good
intuition about where the enemy is going to go. At least not good enough
to
place SMs with confidence. Chances are, If I ever played as FSE (or IF),
I'd
loose no matter the opposition due to sheer incompetence.  :-\

>> About alternate tactics. Wave attacks, Fighter/SM mixes, Beam
support. 

>For FSE, Fighter/SM mixes are reasonable. I've tried them with some
>success. Got enough of the small stuff to have a decent chance of the
>SMs getting through. Then found out that my heavily damaged carrier
>(sans fighters, who had died in droves) was the only ship I had left
due
>to being out-beamed 5:1. And faced a cherry Battledreadnaught with 2
>heavy cruisers.

Where'd your escorts/SM cruisers go? Did you keep them back while the
fighters took out the small stuff?

>> Make SM's a late punch system instead of a fast strike system.

>"Late" is right. As in "The Late Arthur Dent". It's very much a case of
>"use 'em or lose 'em"

Depends on if you can keep the SM's out of harms way until the target is
ripe. No different than protecting a carrier, and SM ships are (usually)
far
better able to keep out of range if they want to.

>> 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.

> If the opponent manouvres, you have enough of the CTE factor in aiming
> the darn things anyway. 

Yet another reason I don't play with SM's. 

>> Well, that is a straw man, since level 4 screens are not a real game
system

> But if a 100% beam defence _did_ exist, would it not be neccessary to
> fix them? Because a 100% SM defence _does_ exist.

If, then, I would proabably agree yes. But I disagree (as above) that
this
defense is 100% vs.any but one kind of attack, an attack which,
uncountered,
virtually guarantees a boring game. I fully endorse a system that is a
close
to 100% defense against a boring game.

> Reminds me of when I was team leading some Israelis working on an IDF
> submarine combat system. "2 Israelis, 3 Opinions" as they say. But
> that's another story.

Hah! My mom's a Sabra. Sounds like our daily family dinner conversation,
back in the day.

From: Sindre Cools Berg <cobos@saers.com>

> Though I agree with you on the need for small ships I see a problem
with
the
> willingness for a fleet to sacrifice large amounts of small usefull
ships
just
> to soak up damage...In a campaign it would mean a non-FSE fleet would
need
as
> much resupply of small scouts as the FSE would of missiles (i..e. you
trade
> one banzai jammer for each salvo). Not to mention the morale effect
etc...

Ideally, the granaatscherven absorm _more_ than one slavo per unit. In a
recent game, mine soaked 2 and 3 at a time. Depends on your maneuvering
and
your opponent's placement. There is indeed the risk of low return on
investment, but you keep your heavies protected. I get around the morale
effect with PSB. My Sheir/Karakau scouts can be operated by AI, but
their
max thrust is reduced to 6 from 8 when used that way. 

Noam