Re: FB designs & fighters

At 9:47 AM -0500 5/7/02, Allan Goodall wrote:
>It depends on how we change the rules, doesn't it?
>
>>What does 6 squadrons do against a Cruiser? It should shred it as
>>well. Regardless. 6 squadrons is the weapons fit of an Ark Royal that
>>makes it different from a Valley Forge. It should have such an
>>effect. If 3 Valley Forges rolled up on a target they could
>
>Depending on the cruiser, 6 squadrons should shred it.

Ho will those 6 squadrons do after you change the PDS so they can 
shoot at every fighter attacking a ship at a time. Wow, I wish my 
Class 3's could shoot at every Torpedo Boat attacking my SDN in one 
turn too.

>Here's an example.
>
>The Richthofen is worth 351 points. It has 3 PDS, 31 hull boxes, 6
armour
>boxes. I'll ignore the class 1 beams for now.
>
>Now, if I have it correct, a single PDS will destroy .8 fighters, on
average.
>(1/2 the time it does nothing, 1/3 it does one point, 1/6 * 1/2 the
time it
>does two points -- a 6 followed by a reroll of 1 to 3 --, 1/6 * 1/3 the
time
>it does 3 points of damage, 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/2 the time it does 4, etc.,
etc.).
>
>On average, the Richthofen's PDS will destroy 2.4 fighters. On average,
each
>fighter left alive will do .8 points of damage to the Richthofen.

So if that PDS gets to shoot at every fighter, then I presume the 
math is .8 x 36 = 28 fighters. Or do you mean that each PDS system 
gets a shot at each group? Then that's 14.4 fighters destroyed in an 
engagement vs a cruiser. Thats a bit under half. Pretty good for a 
general purpose cruiser. What would an AA cruiser do? If it has 8 PDS 
(38.4 fighters destroyed in the first engagement) then it will 
neutralize a carrier's worth of fighters 54 mass and 162 points with 
6 mass and 36 points.

>Six squadrons, losing 2.4 fighters, will do 26.88 points of damage.
That's
>enough to do some heavy damage to the Richthofen.

As is should imo.

>However, let's look at what 20 squadrons would do. 20 squadrons against
a ship
>with 3 PDS would do 94 points of damage. Kiss off the Richthofen. 20
fighter
>squadrons are worth 360 points. What's worse, the squadrons would still
have
>about 117 fighters left.
>
>Here's another example, 6 squadrons against the Komarov (4 PDS, 2 class
1
>beams, 2 shields, 88 hull points, 751 NPV). This is a better defended
ship.
>The shields mean that a fighter squadron does, on average, .4 damage
each.
>Similarly, the Class 1 beams do .4 points of damage each.
>
>The Komarov would do 4 points of damage to the fighters, on average.
Against 6
>squadrons, that leaves 32 fighters. Those 32 would do an average of
12.8
>points of damage to the Komarov. Not enough to get to a threshold. On
the
>second turn, the fighter squadrons lose another 4 fighters and do 11.2
points
>of damage. This would put the Komarov over a threshold, but the
fighters would
>have lost 8 out of 36. At this point, threshold checks are probably
going to
>reduce the fighter defences, but you can see that eventually the
Komarov will
>win this fight (though the 6 fighter squadrons are only worth 108
points,
>though they seem to be giving more than they are taking).
>
>Let's see what happens with 20 squadrons of fighters... 120 fighters,
total,
>are reduced by 4 by the Komarov. They would then do an average of 46.4
points
>of damage. Enough to crash the Komarov through 2 thresholds. Even if
the
>Komarov was lucky and survived with all Class 1s and PDS remaining, the
next
>round of fighter attacks would kill her. 360 NPV of fighters took out
751 NPV
>of SDN, at a cost of only 8 fighters.

Mean while the equivalent points value of carriers is doing what? If 
it's 4 Ark Royals against a ESU battle line, I'd hope those carriers 
could do quite a bit of damage. Really what ends up happening is 
you've just made it pointless for Carriers to be used. Thats how it 
seems to me.

3 Ark Royals and an Illustrious are how many points? I should hope 
that 3 Ark Royals and an Illustrious could totally cream a single 
ship. If they can't why do they exist again?

>  >Really all that will happen as I understand it is that the
>>"effectiveness point" for fighters will be moved higher. Requiring
>>more min-maxing in order to get more than one suicide mission of
>>fighters.
>
>No, because the more fighters you throw at a ship the more shots the
PDS has
>at them. Under the suggested rule, the Komarov's 4 PDS would get to
fire at
>all 20 squadrons, doing 64 points of damage (let's ignore the Class
1s). The

Rolling 100 d6's? Each PDS gets to shoot at each group. Against a 
group of 6 fighters the PDS gets 19.2 kills. That's half the group.

>
>And this is for 720 points of fighters versus a 751 point ship. If you
think
>that fighters are crippled, here's something else to consider: fighters
do
>their damage far more quickly than any other weapon system. How many
hips
>could get a Komarov down to near it's third threshold in 2 turns?

Fighters don't absorb punishment like ships do. They have finite 
endurance and require more behind them. They are a weapon that is 
de-coupled from their associated ship. As it is, they have to reduce 
a ship to component bits (all 4 rows of hull boxes) before it's 
really dead. You don't have the benefit of water sinking the ship to 
help you out.

>I think the PDS option would work. I agree with something Derek has
said about
>making fighter morale optional, because I think you really _do_ need to
let
>fighters survive better under this ruling. I'd also assume that "lost
>fighters" are not totally destroyed and would have a percentage
recoverable in
>a campaign game.
>
>(Just to show the difference in the proposed idea and the current
rules, 40
>squadrons of fighters would push a Komarov through a threshold point in
the
>first turn of attack. The loss to the fighters would be 4. 720 points
of
>fighters can easily shred 3 or 4 Komarovs.)

720 pts of fighters plus the cost of the bays and mass to carry them 
around. Those fighters just don't spring from the head of zeus.

I find it strange that we're using standard ships as a justification 
for dealing with a Min-max ship form. Why not some guidelines on ship 
design. Soap bubble carriers of large size should be difficult or 
hard to build.

>  >The best I can see is allowing limited use of PDS against
>>fighters within 3" radius. Several DDs or CAs could buddy protect
>>each other as they would during such an engagement.
>
>Then fighters would move to within 4" of a ship and be totally immune
to PDS?

*sigh* Ok, then why not allow PDS a 12" range? Wait, don't stop 
there, make it 20", Oh, they can stand off at 21". Make it 
54"...heck, just make it the limit of the table edge. The fighters 
launch and TALOS PDS nails them as they come out of the Launch Bay.

>  >So then explain to me why St Jon included fighters and carriers in
>>the game at all if they aren't realistic?
>
>Because space opera has them... Jon's simultating sci-fi, not reality.

Ahh. Yes. It's space Opera.
"Hey PO Franks, have we got any more robot fighters to send out 
against the Euries?"

Nope.

>  >I'm giving rational
>>doctrine behind fighters and you're saying it's nonsensical.
>
>I'm saying that the idea that Full Thrust doesn't represent modern day
carrier
>doctrine in space is irrelevant. You could argue, though, that Full
Thrust
>doesn't let you represent carrier battles as found in space opera
novels.

Then again, why do we have carriers if a cruiser can cripple the 
"weapons component" from a ship 4 times it's mass?

Why build carriers at all if they don't have a hope of killing a BB 
with their fighter detachments at all, let alone really hurting

>  >Does the NAC really have that much of an
>>over-population of crop-dusting farmer's kids?
>
>Well, this gets into _my_ pet peeve of humans in space fighters in the
first
>place. Given that the US has armed drones for use in Afghanistan, given
that

Umm, its space opera remember?

>humans require life support, given that humans can't withstand anywhere
near
>the g's that a fighter itself can withstand, and given that the RAF and
USAF
>are working to produce autonomous fighters within 20 years, I don't see
why a
>couple of centuries from now we're putting "crop-dusting farmer's kids"
in
>fighters. They should all be computer controlled, autonomous fighters.

With a morale problem? You're getting circular here Allan. I assume 
then that the Kra'Vak Fighter's AI's also Ro'kah?
-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill			     '01 Honda Insight -
- rmgill@SPAmindspring.com			    '85 CB700S -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com		 '76 Chevy Monte Carlo -
- www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       '72 Honda CB750 -
-				      '60 Daimler FV701H Mk2/3 -
-				   '42 Daimler Scout Car Mk II -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-    Smart ID cards in the US, Smart ID cards in Hong Kong,    -
-		      what is the difference?		       - 
----------------------------------------------------------------
-  C&R-FFL  /  Protect your electronic rights!	  \ EFF-ACLU   -
- SAF & NRA/  Join the EFF!  http://www.eff.org/   \ DoD #0780 -