Prev: Re: [FT] SV Overlapping Arcs Next: Re: Retrograde skirmishers

Re: SV: [FT] FB2 Torpedo Fighters (was Fighter customization)

From: stiltman@t...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: SV: [FT] FB2 Torpedo Fighters (was Fighter customization)

> wrote:
> > Oerjan wrote:
> > > Interesting to see Stiltman's analysis where he assumes that the
> > > (non-Torp) fighters would on average take no losses at all to
> > > PDS, while *at the same time* constantly pointing out that they're
> > > exposed to PD fire.
> > Uhhhhh... Oerjan... please stop skimming my posts and then 
mis-stating what
> > I say as though I'm out of my mind.  I did not, in any way, at any
point in
> > my comments on fighters, make any implied or expressed assumption
> > beam fighters would take no losses to enemy PDS,

> Yes, you did. You claimed that a standard fighter squadron would
> inflict on average at least 6*2.8 points of damage, where 6 = the
> number of endurance points the fighters have and 2.8 = the average
> damage of 6 standard fighters firing 1 shot each against a target with
> level-2 screens. 
> You then used this number (6*2.8 = 16.8) to imply that standard
> fighters hurt ships more than FB2 torp fighters (6*2.5 = 15). 

Okay, Oerjan... it appears we have a disconnect in here somewhere. 
you're just skimming my posts so you don't notice close details, but you
say you're not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... but that
means that evidently you just have trouble understanding me here.  My
suggestion (if you _don't_ want us to be flaming each other for the rest
our days on this list... I'm not planning on going anywhere, and I
you're not either) is that, rather than assuming I'm out of my blooming
and publicly posting comments to that effect when the ultimate problem
your own failure to clearly understand me, you either try to fill in the
blanks yourself or, if all else fails, _ask_ me what I mean.  We'll
get along much better.

In this particular case, the missing word here is "surviving"... in
front of
the words "fighter squadron."

i.e. a surviving standard fighter squadron will inflict at least 2.8 * 6
damage, as opposed to the torpedo bomber quad at 15.

If there are enough fighters to attack repeatedly, this can still add up
a lot of damage.  Yes, bombers will do damage faster (depending on house
about how long it takes to reload them).  However, fighters will do
damage (while, yes, taking more losses to their own numbers) that it's
questionable whether it's worth the +18 cost to arm your fighters as
instead, especially when you take the dogfighting weakness into account.

My end point, thus, doesn't change:  there's a lot of options that a
force can throw, but all regular fighters is the one with the highest
offensive and defensive firepower at the least cost, that leaves you
with the
least risk of getting caught in a bad position if your enemy doesn't
the kind of fleet at you that you expect them to.

If you can trust that you'll have fighter superiority, then sure, you
give some serious thought to using torpedo bombers.  That, I'll most
agree with.

If you can't trust anything about what your opponent's going to throw at
(as I can't) then all regulars is your best bet over all other
Anything else creates a gamble that doesn't pay off enough to be worth
 The Stilt Man
   < We are Microsoft Borg '98.  Lower your expectations and	>
   < surrender your money.  Antitrust law is irrelevant.	>
   < Competition is irrelevant.  We will add your financial and >
   < technological distinctiveness to our own.	Your software	>
   < will adapt to service ours.  Resistance is futile. 	>

Prev: Re: [FT] SV Overlapping Arcs Next: Re: Retrograde skirmishers