Re: Strike Boats...

Imre A. Szabo wrote:

>>>I had to mass 180 tenders and 36 mass 10 gunboats.
>>
>> The tenders must've carried some light armament, but they can't have
>> had very much.
> 
> Not true.  They could of eaten any CA alive...  

But they didn't. They damaged two of the SDNs, but didn't knock any of
them out.

>4xTorps w/ 3 arcs, 2xClass 2 360's  2x Class 1 360's, 3x FC, 1xADFC,
>6xPDAF, weak hulls, 2x Screens, 9x Armor, Sup. Sensors, FTL+ (for the
>boats), and a thrust of 2.

Ah, I thought they had thrust-4 since they went in together with the
strikeboats. 

Tenders are a very expensive way of getting FTL capability for those
boats, though - if you had replaced the tenders with average-hulled
battleships (with the same equipment as the tenders except for the tug
FTL drives and having 40 hull boxes instead of 36) and made the
strikeboats Mass 11, cost 40, FTL-equipped, you could've bought another
4 or 5 strikeboats.

>>>I used two types of guns, based on the same mass 10 hull and cost 37
>>>points each (including weapons).  No FTL, Thrust of 4,
>>
>> *Much* too slow for a strikeboat IMO, regardless of which movement
>> system you used. I consider thrust 6 to be the absolute minimum for
>> non-missile strike boats attacking a mobile enemy.
> 
> Not true.  I know my opponent.  He likes big ships and prefers low
thrust.

His ships also had an effective range of 48mu. Thrust-4 strike boats
might have been OK if his ships had had thrust *0*, but it is too slow
otherwise. 

Units with range 48 narrow-arc weapons create their own "terrain
features" (aka fire arcs), which makes you want higher thrust ratings
to avoid them (and move at high speeds to reduce the number of times
they get to fire at you - particularly with those needle boats).

>>>The other had two needle beams.  DO NOT USE NEEDLE BEAMS.  I >>>had
never tried them before and don't recommend them...
>>
>> Depends what you're going to shoot at :-/ In this particular case,
>> I'd've favoured taking out the drives of those Komarovs (since you
>> didn't have many beam weapons, otherwise screens would've been the
>> priority) in order to sit in his rear arc for the rest of the battle
:-/
> 
>Not a bad idea, but I wanted to mission kill the SDN's so the NAC BB's
>would have a chance.

A Komarov with crippled drives is effectively mission-killed. Once you
get into its rear arc, all it can do is die or flee into FTL. Three FCs
is too much to take out reliably with only 12 needles. To reiterate:

>> FC shots are good against DDs (mission-killing them with one hit)
and
>> sometimes against cruisers, but doesn't work too well against ships
>> with many FCs.

FCs are counted "one, two, many". Komarovs have many FCs, not one or
two... and since your follow-up wave only seems to have had 4 units,
you'd've needed to take out all three FCs to mission-kill it. 

OK, a Gorshkov only has about 1/5 the firepower of a Komarov and a
Warsaw or Volga has even less, but your chances to mission-kill them by
taking out their FCs are much better.

>>>Are force came went at the ESU gunline in two waves...  Strike Boats
>>>and Tenders in the first,
>>
>> The *tenders* closed with the enemy?? Why? The main reason to use
>> tender/strikeboat combinations is that you can keep the tender
tucked
>> away somewhere reasonably safe!
> 
>I know, but if I hadn't, the NAC BB's would have been able to go head
to
>head with the SDN's.

You mean "would not have been able to go...", no? OK, they soaked up
some fire which would otherwise have hit the strikeboats, but given how
frail the strikeboats were I don't think that effect was very
significant. OTOH going in together with the Victorias would've given
the ESU a larger number of reasonably hard-to-kill targets to shoot at,
making each of your BBs/ tenders last that much longer.

>Those tenders have good firepower, I expected to lose one, but then I
>expected to lose more then half the StrikeBoats so I consisdered it
worth >while.

Tactically, with the tender designs you had, yes. Strategically/
economically, your armed tender designs don't make a lot of sense - you
paid more than twice as much as normal for the FTL drive on those
strikeboats, and you don't gain much in return - the usual gain is the
reduced risk of losing the FTL drive (ie, the tender).

>>Two-wave strikes with needle units in the first wave can work OK, but
>>it depends a lot on which systems you try to target (and what weapons
>>the follow-up wave use).
> 
>Bad in this case.  I knew it would leave us open to defeat in detail
which
>it did.  

That is the risk you always run with two-wave strikes, yes. As I said,
it *can* work OK, but it's no sure-fire tactic. Especially not when you
use tender/strikeboat combinations instead of giving the boats their
own FTL drives, since that's a very expensive way of getting FTL
capability - buying an FTL for each of the strikeboats would've cost
you only 108 points, but a battleship with the same stats as your
tenders (OK, 39 hull boxes rather than 36) for only 

>I want to use are supperior thrust to get behind him and stay
>there.  If he detached his lighter units, we could kill them before he
>could support them.

Only possible if the tenders and strikeboats operate as two separate
formations, though. You report suggested otherwise, though it didn't
say so explicitly. 

>>>1 SDN was crippled, 1 SDN damage, 1 SDN lost 2 FC, and the other
>>>suffered no damage despite having 12 needle beems shooting at it's
>>>fire controls.

Ie, at least two turns of needle fire wasted. Could you have hit the
SDN which lost 2 FCs with needles a second time (seeing that that way
you'd've had a decent chance of mission-killing it), or was it the one
you hit last?

>>>Losses were 10 strike boats and 1 tender destroyed (Reacter...), and
>>>1 tender damage, and the ESU expend all his SM's.
>>
>> No damage at all to the Gorshkovs and Warsaws?
> 
>Insignificant damage.	Less then 1 row.  I concentrated all firepower
on
>the SDN's, NAC BB's didn't.

Given that the NAC only managed to cripple a DD (and possibly
insignificant damage to some other units), I suspect it wouldn't've
mattered much if it had concentrated its fire anyway :-/
 
> My damage classification:
> Insignificant    < 1 row
> Light 	      1 row
> Heavy 	    2 rows
> Crippled	   3 rows

Similar to what I use, yes.

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