Re: Limiting number of fighters per target - was RE: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

> 
> From a coordination point of view, with a volume of space 523 cubic
kilometers (sphere with a radius of 5km) it seems imminently
unreasonable that you couldn't cram 36, 72 or even 100+ fighters through
that space in a given turn and guarantee that they won't collide. 
> 
> Here is the basis for that conclusion:

   << Some excellent figuring deleted>>
> 
> Even allowing for the volume of the target craft (probably not more
than a few cubic km's even for a large carrier (Star Destroyers excepted
as they are ships with km's of length and huge volume) and perhaps a
"no-survival zone" of one km from the target that no fighter could
survive, you still have several thousand possible choices of flight
paths that are guaranteed to not cross each other.
> 
> 
> In addition, this does not include the idea of longer range stand-off
weapons that allow a fighter to just barely get into range and doesn't
acutally have to enter the critical 5km sphere. There are many more
possible flight paths that simply intersect as a tangent to the critical
sphere that allows for the firing of weapons without having to enter. 
> 
> A note that a 5km is well within range of modern guns that have to
deal with gravity and air-resistance. I would hope that in the fuure,
the technology of weapons would be greater in space than their current
terran-bound ancestors. 

   Of course, there are several factors that you should consider that
*may* 
 reduce the fighter flight paths.

	1) Velocity of the target.  If we insist on applying "reality",
then
	  the target velocity is non-trivial for figuring where the
fighters
	  can attack from.

	2) What volume of space do fighters need to maneuver in to make
them
	  so hard to hit?  Straight line flight paths with modern
weapons 
	  systems would result in vast numbers of dead fighters.

	3) What kind of flight path does a fighter need to achieve a
workable
	  firing solution?   Do you need to be pointed right at the
target in
	  order to fire those energy weapons?  Do you have to fire
repeated
	  shots, or just one energy blast?  How long do you need to be
in the
	  danger zone to get a good firing solution for your missiles?

	4) How do PDS effect your ability to approach?	PDS "effective"
range
	  may be the same as fighter attack range, but it's entirely
possible
	  that shipboard PDS are firing for quite some time as "area
denial"
	  before the fighters reach effective range.

	5)  Does a fighter need to be closer than 5 km for any reason? 
Perhaps
	  a fighter doesn't carry enough power to fire effective shots
at that
	  range.  Maybe it needs to get closer to get a good targeting
solution
	  for "weak spots" on the target.  Maybe even fighter based
missiles
	  need to be close to find weak spots.

   I'm just saying that there are *lot's* of ways to PSB limitations on
fighter
 attacks, and the PSB's that say there should be no limits are every bit
as
 setting specific as PSB's that say there should.  The bottom line
should be
 whether it makes for a fun and useful rule or not, not the
justification for
 it.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> I think the real issue is what flavor are you trying to capture:
> 
> WWI aircraft - Planes are roughly equal but surprise and individual
skill mattered
> WWII aircraft - planes vary widely in quality, speed and armnament,
but individual skill still matters
> Post-korea to modern - planes are roughly similar in physical
qualities, but technology matters most. Individual pilot skill is
secondary to the use of technology. (i.e. it's not how well you can
pilot the plane, but use your radar to get a lock-on for a kill).
> 
> 
> You will be hard pressed to find a single rule set that will fit all
three types of simulation and work well with all three.
> 

    I agree.  I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there should be
several
  options to help players simulate different settings.

   grant