Re:FT-Tugs and swarm tactics

Bif Smith wrote:

Bif Smith wrote:

[designs snipped - all are OK. Nice to see someone else use reasonable
thrust ratings <g>] 

>If my maths above are correct (someone want to check?), 

Done. They are :-)

>a flight of 4 FTL ships costs 340 pts and masses 96, Vs a cost of 
>355 and a mass of 101 for a group of  4 LACs and a FTL tug. In and
>campain or stategic system, I could see the non-FTL version being
>better in the fact that you woul only have to replace the actual LACs
>(requiring a mass of 80 and a cost of 292), the tug staying very far
away >from the fight.

The drawback is that FTL-capable ships often find it easier to escape
from a losing fight than sub-light ships (by hypering out). Not that
much of a
problem with thrust-10 ships as it is with thrust-6 or slower, nor with
ships this fragile (since they usually die when they're hit), but a
factor
nonetheless.

Of course, this tug is *very* vulnerable if an enemy manages to get
past the
LACs. It is quite annoying  to have your battle carriers destroyed -
and
conversely very fun to blow your opponent's tugs up and lock his
sub-light
units to a single system <g>

>As to the combat power of these ships, against anything but
>fighters, they will destroy any ship of equal mass or cost, with
>varing suvival rates depending on how they are used.

Um... if the LACs hit with at least 3 of their SMRs, the they will
probably win. If the missiles miss, or if one or more of the LACs are
destroyed before the others can launch, they'll most likely lose.

>I was wondering if anybody else has had a lot of experiance of 
>using swarm type tactics using light ships? 

<raises hand> 

Plenty of experience defeating them, too :-/

>Also, a question that arised from testing these small ships, was that
when >using Cl 1 bats as PDS, you require a F.con per Cl 1 batt, but
can the >firecon (NOT the Cl 1 batt) be used also in the ship weapon
fire phase? >(just like firecons used with missiles/sml`s?).

Good question. The rules don't say, though I suspect that Jon intended
the MT rule to mean "no". I'd prefer to say "yes" instead - otherwise
an escort under attack by fighters has to choose between firing its B1s
at the fighters and firing its bigger weapons at the enemy ships (if it
survives the fighter attack) :-/

>PS-In testing the above ships, the maneuverablity of the ships allows
you >to go from beyond the target ships weapon range to close range
(within >the range of a C pulsar) in a single turn. Also, it doesn`t
matter what the >other ship tries, these things have such a high thrust
that avioding SML`s >or catching a ship trying to run is  easy (to see
what I mean, try 4 of these >against a CH, rough match in mass and
cost, but if handled right, these >little buggers can fire their SMR`s,
and break away using their high thrust >and kill a CH before it can do
anything. 

OTOH, if the *cruiser* is handled right - only really possible on big
or
floating tables though - the LACs will have to come inside its beam
weapon
envelope before they can launch.

>Also, missiles hit before a beam can fire, so it may be posible to 
>kill a beam armed target before they could return fire anyway).

Only if the target allows the LACs to attack it head-on :-/

Bif wrote in reply to someone:

>>Wow, a fast mover, fer sure!	Would dropping the thrust to 8 or even
6
>>loosen up enough mass for another weapon (Haven't done the math yet
>>myself.)
> 
>Every thrust point on one of these is 1 mass (5%), so if you go for a
close
>attack version (only a c pulsar, no SMR), you could up the thrust to
18!

Um, no. Dropping the SMR only frees 4 Mass, giving you thrust-14. You
have to drop the Pulser, the FCS and the PDS as well, leaving only the
minimum hull structure and the engines, to reach thrust-18 :-/

Laserlight wrote in reply to Noam:

>>If the tug is indeed far enough from the action so as not to be
involved
>>in combat, then the non-FTL ships have to pay extra points (10-20%
>>Laserlight?) to compensate for the lack of targetable transportation.
That >>kills your point advantage.

In a one-off tactical battle, yes. Not in a campaign game though - the
benefit there isn't that you don't have to pay for the tug (because you
do), but rather that you don't have to pay for a *new* tug when you
lose the strike boats. Assuming, of course, that the attackers can't
get past the LACs to hit the tug directly <g>

>Oerjan's opinion is that it should be 10-15%; that the difference
between >10% and 15% is less than the effects of luck in eg initiative
rolls (except for >large battles); and non-FTL ships can't escape when
crippled; therefore >he recommends adding +10%NPV to non-FTL ships.

Yep. That's to some extent based on our local "standard" victory
conditions though - we award more points for enemy cripples which
surrender than for enemy cripples which manage to flee.

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."