Re: B5-3 Aft

Stiltman wrote:

>However, there are a great many assumptions in play that stretch (my)
>suspension of disbelief in the viability of such a craft.
>
>1.  For the actual game itself, you need a floating table with a large
area
>for this tactic to work.

Sure. A very large floating table is the best Full Thrust approximation
of 
deep space you can get, after all.

>2.  Moreover, you also need a strategic environment in which it is
assumed
>that the Kra'Vak have no choice in the war but to chase these things
down 
>in deep
>space.

Nope. As I wrote when I described this ship's tactics, if the KV don't 
chase it it'll just flit around their formations. It can for example fly

beside them, parallell to their course - that's why it has an 180-degree

fire arc, after all - and wear them down anyway. Unless of course they
go 
somewhere where it can't keep up with them, eg. into the middle of a 
fighter screen <g>

Of course, if you're really worried about the KV not wanting to chase
you 
you can always increase the size of this ship to TMF 73 (hull integrity
7) 
to be able to fit an all-arc B5 instead of the 3-arc one in the sample 
design :-)

>The main problem I have with designs that take this sort of methodology
is 
>that it's
>completely and utterly incapable of defending a fixed point in space,
such 
>as an
>inhabited world.

This particular problem is solved by assuming that you can intercept the

enemy far enough away from the fixed point you want to defend <shrug>

It all depends on how far out from the target you can leave FTL in your 
particular background, really - if you can drop out of (and enter) hyper

space right on top of the planet then this long-range fencer is useless,

but if the hyper limit is far from the planet it can be quite effective.

Note that "right on top of the planet" essentially means "inside the
weapon 
range of the planetary defences". 'Course, if the enemy is able to drop
out 
of hyper that close, then the planetary defences probably won't have
time 
to do much good either :-/

>The only scenario where the idea works is one in which your opponent
has no
>option but to chase you down in deep space,

Such as eg. when he is approaching the fixed point he wants to attack
from 
wherever he dropped out of hyper, or moving from his secure planetary 
defences out to the hyper limit... <g>

>Over a long term strategic view, a starfaring power that devoted any
large
>amount of precious resources to such tactics would find itself in a
rather 
>monumental
>pickle as an enemy figured out ways of conducting the war that didn't 
>require their
>ships to engage in futile chases through deep space.

<chuckle> I build a few medium cruisers as fencers; you have to attach a

couple of light carriers (or a few fencers of your own) to every task 
force, convoy and patrol you want to be safe from my fencers. Which of
us 
do you think has to spend the most resources? :-)

It's basically the old commerce raider doctrine again... and commerce 
raiders have historically been very effective indeed for tying up huge 
amounts of enemy naval assets :-) It won't win the war by itself, but it

most certainly can shift the balance of the war.

Kind regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry