Re: [FT] Yet Another Fighters Suggestion

From: "Chris Ronnfeldt" <zephyr2112@yahoo.com>

> PSB problem :
> Given that WWII fighters were capable of the required
> level of coordination without any special training in
> multi-carrier operations (see the Pacific theater
> naval battles, Midway in particular), you are assuming
> that the increase in coordination required when going
> from air to space fighters is substantially greater
> than the improvement in Command and Control
> technologies going from WWII to the time in your game.
> 
> Also, given that two of the most common FT turn
> lengths are 7.5 and 15 minutes, it is rather hard to
> buy the 'not enough time for multiple seperate waves' aspect.

If you take WW2 as an analogy, then the most massive airstrike
AFAIK on a single target was that on the Japanese Battleship
Musashi, the last attack involving 33 aircraft, attacking
over 45 minutes. (Source : Dive Bomber	by Peter C Smith)

Wave 1 : 12 (from Intrepid and Cabot)
Wave 2 : 12 (from Intrepid and Cabot, starting after 1st wave)
Wave 3 : 20 (from Essex and Lexington)
Wave 4 : 33 ( from Enterprise, Cabot, Franklin, Intrepid)

Each strike took from 15 mins to 45 mins, basically, about 1
attack every 90 seconds on average (though in fact they came
in bursts of 3-6 over 1 minute, then a lull, then another 3-6)

Modern (year 2000) airstrikes are normally run in pairs every
30 seconds or so, when attacking at low level. But with long
periods while aircarft for-up before attacking. With good C2,
and a "Master of Ceremonies", I've seen up to 12 Time-On-Target
stand-off weapons arrive in the target area simultaneously -
though that took 30 mins to set up.

YES, CO-ORDINATION OF AIR-STRIKES TAKES TIME. 

36 attacks over 15 minutes would be stretching it. But attacks in
space are not air attacks, so YMMV.

The more I think on it, the better I like my original idea,
which matches up quite well with air strikes (though whether
this is desireable or not is another matter entirely).

The rules are simple:
(I)Only 1 fighter group can attack a target from one aspect. No limits
on missiles in the same arc.
(II)Only 1 PDS or similar system *per ship* can defend on any one aspect
vs fighters. No limits vs missiles of any type.

I've been experimenting with the following, which I'm coming to
believe is just extra complication with little benefit:
(Optional III) Beams larger than B-1 may fire as B-1s, but only against
Fighters in their arc of fire, and like B-1s, cannot fire against
ships that turn.
(Optional IV) Fighters may not attack in any arc where missiles are
incoming, due to Blue-On-Blue problems and Fratricide

Examples:
a) 7 fighter groups want to attack a ship : Only 6 can do so 
simultaneously.

b) A ship has 4 PDS systems, and is attacked by a single Fighter
group. Only 1 PDS can fire.

c) A ship has 4 PDS systems, and a nearby ADFC escort with 4 others,
and is attacked by 3 fighters.
3 of the fighters have 1 PDS allocated to them by the target, which
cannot use its 4th PDS. However, the escort can also allocate 3 of
its PDS systems ( remember, the limit is 1 PDS per Arc Per Ship ),
so each Fighter has 2 PDS on it.

Corollaries:
A really large ship may have 6 PDS, but there is little point having
more (unless you're up against missiles).
A ship with 4 PDS and 2 ADFC escorts each with another 4 are FAR
more effective than 1 supership with 12 PDS.
Having even a small number of Fighters is worthwhile, as even the
most heavily PDS-equipped ship is unlikely to wipe them out before
they get in an attack ( morale rules permitting...)

Basically, the FB1 designs make a lot of sense using this rule.
Sure, a fleet of Soap Bubble Carriers will beat them, but so will
a supership with Thrust-4 and a single Beam-10 in an aft arc that
snipes away at 100 range - which will also beat the Soap-Bubbles,
eventually, after a long, boring and pointless game.

I might add that I appear to be in a minority of one on this issue.