Re: FB designs & fighters

In message <k7kfduonjl70olrlgdo63fo6pfn43fsn10@4ax.com>
	  Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 May 2002 21:57:57 -0400, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> 
> >So if you change the rules, how will Ark Royals Fair against other FB

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

Umm.. there is all that hanger space needed to carry 20 flights of
fighters around though, thats 180 MASS and another 540 points! plus the
ship(s) that need to be wrapped round the hanger bays!
[major snippage]
> 
> >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
> 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.

> 
> 
> Allan Goodall 		 agoodall@hyperbear.com
> http://www.hyperbear.com
> 
Well, for more 'realistic' settings, I'd definitely prefer autonomous
combat drones (see one of my previous posts for ideas on this subject),
while for more 'space operatic' genres...

Charles