Re: [FT] SMLs and Banzai Jammers

Alan wrote:

> > However, I wasn't talking about firing *SMs* behind me.
> 
> Assuming an FSE fleet running from an NSL fleet (to make it easier),
> that means you get to plink away (say) 2 damage points worth of enemy
> ship per turn.

A bit of an understatement <g> Depends quite a bit on the exact make-up
of the fleets of course, but don't expect the NSL to have a greater
advantage than about 4:1 in effective beam firepower during the fencing
stage - and that is if *all* of the FSE ships are running (instead of
detatching their screening elements for flank attacks on the NSL).
Those odds can still be scary of course, but not nearly as scary as the
10:1 odds you're suggesting :-/

> > > And on a floating table + cinematic movement, assume the pursuers
> > > retreat.
> > 
> > Um... Alan, if the pursuers *retreat* they are no longer pursuers,
> > and unless I've been careless enough to let them slip in between me

> > and any fixed or slow-moving objectives I need to protect, I'm
quite 
> > happy to see them off without a fight. I believe this is called
something
> > like "winning on walk-over" <g>
> 
> I can see I wasn't very clear here. My reaction to "I'll retreat and
> plink him" was "two can play at that game".

IME, the FSE fleet usually doesn't need to fall back for more than 2-3
turns - ie, until enough enemy scherven have been suitably dealt with -
and unless they were sitting at or behind the objective they were
supposed to screen when the enemy comes into range of it (ie, unless
they were caught with their pants down), they have the space they need
to do that.

How long does the enemy fleet need to fall back to avoid FSE missiles?
How long does it take them to even reach "safe" velocities -
particularly assuming they're NSL?

> > > As soon as you get to 30 speed or so, your SMs become
> > > completely useless, as they have a 24" range
> >
> > Do you really want to bet on that? :-)
> 
> I'm not a betting man, but in this case, yes. Cinematic movement of
> course.

You lost the bet. Not all my SMs have a range of 24"...

> > > a) Banzai Jamming is a 100% defence against SMs, when combined
> > > with some ADAFs and PDs
> > 
> > ...unless countered by long-range beam fire or other tactics to
> > sweep the jammers. The arms race isn't quite as fast in the
official
> > GZGverse as it is among us, though, so the FSE hasn't yet deployed 
> > very efficient scherven-sweepers.
> 
> Which would be what? 200 mass ships armed with nothing but MT 
> missiles?

MT missiles don't sweep granaatscherven. They *ignore*
granaat-scherven, and attack the main targets directly.

> Or possibly 200 3 mass ships armed with nothing but Scatterpacks?

Kra'Vak technology? Not necessary IMO.

By a strange coincidence however, what you describe here sounds
suspiciously similar to the sub-pack version of the FSE Mistral-class
(though you may want to replace the second C1 battery as well). Indeed,
the FSE might already have started adapting to NSL use of Falke and
Stroschen BJs... particularly since they have lost a considerably
larger fraction of their Mistrals in combat than any of the other
fleets have of their respective scout classes :-/ Too bad the Mistrals
won't survive the battle, but then your Stroschens or Falkes are
supposed to die to protect their betters as well <shrug>

Ibizas and San Miguels work OK as scherven-sweepers as well IME.

> Or just copies of NI designs?

No, copies of *IF* designs. NI =|= IF, like :-/

> Or ships with hordes of Beam-4s firing sideways?
> Or just have a few special-purpose wave-guns?

Those two work pretty OK too against scherven on unlimited boards, yes
(though the C4 designs tend to be vulnerable to more conventional fleet
mixes). None of the official FB designs have such weapon mounts, of
course.

> Each of the 4 major powers has its own flavour:
> NSL - no shields, Slow, but cockroach-tough and a sh*tload of beams
> FSE - fragile, fast, and missile-equipped
> ESU - mediocre at everything, and none of this fancy technology
> NAC - high-tech ESU.

ESU - Sturdy if somewhat unimaginative sluggers, well capable to hold
their own against all comers. 
NAC - High-tech pansies who get beaten by just about anyone...
particularly if they bring carriers or Vandenburgs <g> 

> Now if one of the major weapons systems of the above has a major flaw
> with it, then one of the Fleets gets to play whipping-boy. You could
> fix this by fixing the flaw, or by changing the flavour.
> 
> For obvious reasons, I say fix the flaw.

As long as you don't just replace it with another flawed mechanic, I
agree. Unfortunately I'm not at all sure you're not doing just that.

> > >  b) Since the NSL has probably the most cost-effective SM
> > > launcher in anyone's fleet, the Waldberg-M
> > 
> > Please spell the name correctly.
> 
> Ta for the correction. Is it Waldburg/M or will Waldburg-M be OK?
> Maybe a trivial point, but if it irks you I'll try to conform.

As long as you call it "Waldburg" instead of "Waldberg", "Weldburg",
"Waldbarg" or some other as yet unencountered mutation of the class
name, I promise not to complain about your choice of slashes or hyphens
for the version tag <g> The "official" version is Waldburg/M, though -
slash rather than hyphen. 

You've only used the "Waldberg" version AFAIK, but I've seen the other
two versions perpetrated by others on the list and the web during the
past two months. For some reason this poor ship seems to get its name
misspelled about as often as all the other FB ones taken together :-/

> > The Waldburg/M is cost effective only if you use several of them
> 
> Well, yes. As are any SML ships in a fleet action.

Certainly. In most other cases you get a small amount of self-defence
ability along with the launchers though; the Waldburg/Ms needs escorts
if they are to survive. NSL battleline ships make decent escorts, but
tend to limit the maneuverability of the DDs somewhat :-/

> > I consider the Jerez the best overall SM
> > unit in FB1: tough enough to deliver all of its payload, well
enough
> > armed to do something once the magazine is empty (or defend itself
> > against enemy light units) - and fast enough to get away if its
> > secondary armament turned out to be insufficient
> 
> Good points, and I agree to some extent. I don;t have the figures to
> hand, but I think you can get 5 Waldburg/Ms for the price of 4 Jerez.
> So even if you lose one to enemy plinking, the SML strength is the
same.

You can get almost 6 Waldburg/M-mounted SM launchers for the cost of 4
Jerez-mounted SM launchers - each Jerez has two launchers but costs
almost three times as much as a Waldburg/M. However, IMO the Jerezes'
higher thrust alone is worth the "loss" of almost two launchers in
Cinematic; the higher toughness and better secondary batteries are pure
freebies. The Waldburg/M closes in if you play Vector since the turning
ability isn't nearly as much of an issue there, but the Jerezes' other
advantages still put them a couple steps ahead.

> > The Waldburg is
> > cheaper per launcher than the Jerez, but not fast enough to get
> > away, nor sturdy enough to ensure that both salvoes actually get
away,
> > nor armed with back-up weapons.
> 
> It's sturdier than you think, but again, I agree to a great degree.

They have been considerably *less* sturdy than I thought the times I've
met (read: swatted) them in battle :-/

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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