(fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:13:15 +0100 , Ohlson Örjan
<orjan.ohlson@dynamics.saab.se> wrote:

And one for the main GZG list:

Imre Szabo wrote:

>>In other words, you launched too early and paid the cost for it -
which is
>>exactly what I wrote above :-7
>
>Oh really?  Half my launchers DIED on the turn I launched.

Yes, really. Send in your escorts to take out the Lenovs one turn BEFORE
the
missile units get into the enemy's range; while the escorts will almost
inevitably take a very severe drubbing their sacrifice allows your
missiles
to hit worthwhile targets. (Lenovs are very, very easy to destroy - even
a
crippled Athena-class corvette usually manages to nail one :-) )

(Before you say that "all this will accomplish is to get my escorts
wiped
out for no benefit", please consider that the BJ screens used by the NSL
fleets in the AARs I mentioned in the previous post consisted of 16
Strochen-class corvettes @ 6 damage points in the first battle and 14
Falke-class scouts @ 3 damage points in the second. Each of those
screens is
very much more difficult to take out than the 6 Lenovs @ 1 damage point
in
the ESU fleet you described, yet my FSE light units were able to destroy
enough of them that they didn't interfere with my heavies' subsequent
missile launches... and the two battles reported were no freak
accidents,
either; this is one of my standard anti-BJ tactics for FSE-style fleets
faced with BJs, and so far it has given me victory against BJ-believers
about two-thirds of the times I've used it.)

If you can arrange for the escorts to approach the enemy from another
direction than the missile units, that's an extra bonus - either the
enemy
spends thrust points (or, in Cinematic, come to a full stop to spin in
place) to turn to face each of your squadrons in turn (in which case
he'll
be less able to dodge your missiles), or at least one of your squadrons
will
be able to avoid his full direct-fire firepower.

Of course this tactic requires you to actually bring FSE escorts to the
battle (something many players don't bother with since small ships are
'worthless' in Full Thrust except as BJs), and it also requires you to
split
your forces (something which many players believe is tactical insanity
which
allows the enemy to defeat you in detail). Breaking two basic
rules-of-thumb
for success in Full Thrust ("use large ships only" and "don't split your
fleet up") may seem a bit counter-intuitive at first, so if the battle
you
describe was the first time you had encountered Banzai Jammers it is
quite
understandable if you didn't  think of it :-7

***
In another post, Imre wrote:

>The advantage of the big ship over the little ship is concentration of
>firepower.  

Well, that's *one* of their advantages at least (concentration of
firepower
means that they fire more weapons earlier in the Ships Fire phase of the
turn than multiple small ships do) :-/ 

Their *other* advantages are that they also have a better concentration
of
hull and armour boxes (so start losing weapons later than a number of
small
ships with the same total number of damage boxes) and a better
concentration
of DCPs (so far more likely to repair the weapons they lose than small
ships
are). All things considered, I'd rate the concentration of hull and
armour
boxes as somewhat more important than the concentration of firepower.

***
Binhan Lin wrote:

>If you stick an ADFC on each ship you again get dilution of firepower -
you

>are paying for 10-12 ADFC when you only really need 3-6.  The
additional 
>mass used by the ADFC's could be used to bulk up more dedicated PDS 
>ships.  Then if you are going to go down the dedicated PDS ship, then
you 
>end up the Aegis type cruiser with 12-18 PDS and 2-3 ADFC.

The problem with dedicated ADFC ships is that they tend to become
priority
targets for the enemy. In order to take out a single Aegis cruiser with
18
PDS and 3 ADFC, the enemy is typically able to kill all those PDSs and
ADFCs
by inflict about 25-30 points of damage on that one ship; if instead
those
PDSs are spread out over six cruisers each with a single ADFC each he
needs
to inflict some 150-180 points of damage do get them all. That's a
pretty
big increase in weapon survivability, especially considering that it
only
cost you 3 extra ADFCs (35-40 pts when the extra hull and engines are
included).

FWIW many groups which use custom designs do both of these - put an ADFC
on
every ship, *and* bring a dedicated ADFC cruiser or two :-/

***
Hugh Fisher wrote:

>Salvo missiles seem to have much the same characteristics, although 
>presumably if I search the archive I'll find grumbles about them too?

The big difference between SMs and fighters is that fighters are far
more
accurate. SMs can (and often do) miss entirely or hit something you
don't
want them to (eg. a tiny scoutship), whereas fighters will almost
invariably
hit exactly the target they want to thanks to their secondary move and
ability to target any one enemy ship within their weapons range (instead
of
the closest one only).

>I was thinking more that right now a fighter is costed (points) as a
Class
1 
>beam, but regarded as being more effective.

The fighter *itself* is costed as a B1, but you also need to buy a
fighter
bay to carry the fighter in. When you include the fighter bay as well
the
basic hull structure and engines needed to support each of the systems,
the
fighter costs about twice as much as the B1.

>Isn't a certain amount of non-linearity unavoidable, or even to be
expected?
>One big ship seems to beat up two or more smaller ships, even if the
points

>values are nominally the same.

The big-ship advantages (discussed a bit above) are another problem
area,
yes, but the non-linearity you get there is considerably smaller than
the
fighter non-linearity.

>Standard FB1 (and FB2, but only one Savasku showed) fleets, 1800
>/3000 pt fleets, I had six to eight groups.

Six to eight fighter groups in a 3000-pt fleet is not exactly what I'd
consider "fighter heavy", though... Imre's 18 groups in a 3000-pt battle
is
more like it, but he is still a bit on the light side (those NAC
carriers
spend a LOT of mass and points on screens and armour...) :-/

Later,

Oerjan

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"We come into the world and take our chances
 Fate is just the weight of circumstances
 That's the way that Lady Luck dances
 Roll the bones." - N. Peart