Proposed Changes to Fighters

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

This is a paraphrase of something I posted in another thread plus some extra information. I thought it would be best starting a new thread rather than continuing in the old one.

I have been playing around with the idea of changing fighters so they are designed on the Class window instead of using the seperate Fighter Design window. In this case, fighters would be just like any other ship, except smaller, which would make many things in the game a lot easier as from a programming perspective as fighters would no longer need rules catering to a separate category of unit. On the other hand, it would then make targeting harder because fighters would be targeted individually rather than as a squadron, as they are now. There would also no longer be the concept of a squadron identity and fighters would be commanded individually. On the gripping hand, many of the restrictions around fighters would be removed and they could fire and move individually as required with the same flexibility as a ship.

A combination of the two might be a possibility. A "fighter" would be identified as such by using a fighter engine. If you could create squadrons as an administrative entity, they could have names, etc. Each fighter could be assigned to a squadron and then when you want to launch fighters from a ship (from parasite hangars, not the current hangar bays), you could instead launch a squadron name and all fighters from that squadron would launch together and form a single fleet. "Fighters Squadrons" would still be fleets in all but name and would receive orders on the fleet window. To solve the targeting issue, perhaps another option would be for any shots against fighters that are already destroyed to be re-allocated to any other fighters within a certain radius (perhaps using the anti-fighter PD mode that was suggested in another post)

To accomplish this I need a tiny engine along the lines of the FAC engines plus components such as cockpit, smaller fire control systems, etc. I also need an equivalent of the launch rails, using missile launchers that are effectively single shot or a very long reload. There is no reason why this couldn't be used on ships too so my concern is that it might be unbalancing. However, there is no real reason why fighter rails couldn't be used on ships so this would address that inconsistency. I have added some auto-assign options for fire control in v2.6 where the computer figures out what fire control and weapons you would likely assign to one another. This would make assigning weapons, etc for small craft such as fighters much easier. I should also note that I haven't really figured out the exact mechanics for deployment of new type of fighters. They would still be built in fighter factories but deployed straight into fleets rather than the existing squadrons.

After trying various ideas for designing fighters using the Class Design window, I have come up with the following changes:

1) A new type of Engine which is 1 HS, has 3x normal power, uses 100x normal fuel and is 5x more likely to explode. As with FAC engines, only one would be allowed per fighter.

2) A new command module, which is a 0.1 HS crew quarters capable of supporting 20 crew

3) Because of their small size, fighters do not require the same level of structural integrity. Therefore they only use armour in certain key areas and require only half the armour amount of larger vessels.

4) The cost of missile fire controls has been changed so that cost is based directly on range rather than the more complex formula used at the moment. This makes shorter ranged missile fire control a little cheaper and longer ranges about the same. I have also added an option for a 0.5 HS missile fire control with half the racial fire control range.

5) A new missile launcher option of 1/4 normal size that reloads 100x more slowly than normal and includes on-mount missile storage for one missile. Also, changes to the reduced size launchers to decrease the crew requirement of the smaller launchers.

6) Fractional size missile launchers to accomodate the above

7) Fighters are allowed to have fractional class sizes, so you could have a 4.3 HS fighter (or 215 tons). I am not entirely sure about this because I am concerned that there may be places in the program that assume integer class sizes. However, for such small size craft it adds a useful level of variety so I am going to try and eliminate any problems. There may be a little trial and error involved at first.

Here are some examples of the wide variety of fighter designs that are possible when using the new ideas. You could also have different types of fighters in the same fleet (or squadron).

Code: [Select]

Sepulchre-L class Light Fighter    160 tons     14 Crew     32.3 BP      TCS 3.2  TH 36  EM 0
11250 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0     PPV 1
Magazine 4    

Fighter Ion Engine (1)    Power 36    Efficiency 100.00    Signature 36    Armour 0    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 2.7 billion km   (2 days at full power)

Talon 04-3200 Missile Launcher (1)    Missile Size 4    Rate of Fire 3200
M200 Missile Fire Control  (1)    Range: 200k km
Battleaxe ASM (2)  Speed: 18,000 km/s   Endurance: 16 secs    Range: 288k km   Warhead: 4    Size: 4

Code: [Select]

Sepulchre-H class Heavy Fighter    215 tons     16 Crew     39.5 BP      TCS 4.3  TH 36  EM 0
8372 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0     PPV 2
Magazine 8    

Fighter Ion Engine (1)    Power 36    Efficiency 100.00    Signature 36    Armour 0    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 2.0 billion km   (2 days at full power)

Talon 04-3200 Missile Launcher (2)    Missile Size 4    Rate of Fire 3200
M200 Missile Fire Control  (1)    Range: 200k km
Battleaxe ASM (2)  Speed: 18,000 km/s   Endurance: 16 secs    Range: 288k km   Warhead: 4    Size: 4

Code: [Select]

Arrow class Interceptor    190 tons     15 Crew     36.5 BP      TCS 3.8  TH 36  EM 0
9473 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0     PPV 1.5
Magazine 6    

Fighter Ion Engine (1)    Power 36    Efficiency 100.00    Signature 36    Armour 0    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 2.3 billion km   (2 days at full power)

Talon M2-1600 Missile Launcher (3)    Missile Size 2    Rate of Fire 1600
M200 Missile Fire Control  (1)    Range: 200k km

Code: [Select]

Sepulchre-R class Recon Fighter    145 tons     13 Crew     35.3 BP      TCS 2.9  TH 36  EM 0
12413 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0     PPV 0

Fighter Ion Engine (1)    Power 36    Efficiency 100.00    Signature 36    Armour 0    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres    Range 6.0 billion km   (5 days at full power)

N1 Navigation Sensor (1)     GPS 240     Range 2.4m km    Resolution 15
      Secondary Mode:     GPS 48     Range 480k km    Resolution 12

Code: [Select]

Viking class Tanker    235 tons     15 Crew     45.7 BP      TCS 4.7  TH 36  EM 0
7659 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0     PPV 0

Fighter Ion Engine (1)    Power 36    Efficiency 100.00    Signature 36    Armour 0    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres    Range 27.6 billion km   (41 days at full power)

Code: [Select]

Hawkeye class Spaceborne Early Warning    400 tons     36 Crew     113.6 BP      TCS 8  TH 36  EM 0
4500 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0     PPV 0

Fighter Ion Engine (1)    Power 36    Efficiency 100.00    Signature 36    Armour 0    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1.1 billion km   (2 days at full power)

Recherche-80 Search Sensor (1)     GPS 3600     Range 36.0m km    Resolution 45
      Secondary Mode:     GPS 720     Range 7.2m km    Resolution 36
Steve

[Erik L]

I notice all of your armed fighters had missiles. What about beam type weapons?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I notice all of your armed fighters had missiles. What about beam type weapons?

As with the existing fighters, beam weapons are not very useful because beam fire control tends to be larger than missile fire control, a reactor is required and the beam weapons themselves are quite large. In Starfire, the fighter lasers were completely overpowered and far more effective than their ship-based counterparts in terms of power vs mass.

I guess one option would be some type of slow-firing weapon along the same lines as a slow firing missile launcher but you would still need the fire control. A reasonable 1 HS fire control using the current Templar tech would be possible using 50% for range and 1.5x for speed.

Fighter Fire Control
50% Accuracy at Range: 12,000 km     Tracking Speed: 4800 km/s
Size: 1    HTK: 1    Cost: 27    Crew: 5
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Materials Required: 6.75x Duranium  20.25x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 270RP.

That would allow:

Code: [Select]

Sepulchre class Fighter    375 tons     48 Crew     84.6 BP      TCS 7.5  TH 36  EM 0
4800 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0     PPV 3

Fighter Ion Engine (1)    Power 36    Efficiency 100.00    Signature 36    Armour 0    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km   (2 days at full power)

10cm C3 Near Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 24,000km     TS: 4800 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 3    ROF 5        3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fighter Fire Control (1)    Max Range: 24,000 km   TS: 4800 km/s     58 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor  (1)     Total Power Output 3    Armour 0    Exp 5%The reactor has enough power to maintain the 5 second rate of fire so although the fighter is slow and only effective at point blank range, it has a lot more staying power than the missile fighters.

Its possible that beam weapons could be reduced in size for a much lower rate of fire, although I don't think that you could get the same savings as you could with missile launchers because the reload mechanism is probably a much greater part of the launcher than the recharge mechanism on a beam weapon, especially as the power source is external. However, bearing in mind that beam weapons are usually faster firing anyway, lets assume that a beam weapon could be reduced in size by 25% for a drop in 4x increase in rate of fire and it could be reduced to 50% of normal size for a 20x increase in ROF (this compares to 50% reduction for 5x increase in ROF for a missile weapon). This gives us cut-down versions of the 10cm and 12cm lasers that are both 2 HS. As the 12cm is more powerful, I'll use that. I'll also only use a visible light laser as range is not really a factor given the fire control limitations.

12cm Fighter Laser
Damage Output 4     Rate of Fire: 135 seconds     Range Modifier: 2
Max Range 80,000 km     Laser Size: 2    Laser HTK: 1
Power Requirement: 4    Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 0.15
Cost: 6    Crew: 10
Materials Required: 1.2x Duranium  1.2x Boronide  3.6x Corundium
Development Cost for Project: 60RP

I have added 0.1 HS and 0.2 HS options for reactors. Even the basic Pressurised Water Reactor provides enough power so I will go with the cheapest option.

Mini-PWR
Power Output: 0.2     Internal Armour: 0     Explosion Chance: 5
Reactor Size: 0.1    Reactor HTK: 1
Cost: 1    Crew: 1
Materials Required: 0.25x Duranium  0x Neutronium  0.75x Boronide
Development Cost for Project: 10RP

These improve the fighter to:

Code: [Select]

Sepulchre class Fighter    300 tons     27 Crew     66.4 BP      TCS 6  TH 36  EM 0
6000 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0     PPV 2

Fighter Ion Engine (1)    Power 36    Efficiency 100.00    Signature 36    Armour 0    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1.4 billion km   (2 days at full power)

12cm Fighter Laser (1)    Range 24,000km     TS: 6000 km/s     Power 4-0.15     RM 2    ROF 135        4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fighter Fire Control (1)    Max Range: 24,000 km   TS: 4800 km/s     58 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mini-PWR (1)     Total Power Output 0.20    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Very different to the missile armed fighters but I guess it could be considered an assault fighter as its combat power over time is vastly superior to the missile armed fighters. The offset is that it's slower and needs to reach point blank range

Steve

[Erik L]

I was thinking of beam armed fighters for a anti-fighter/missile role, with missile fighters being anti-ship role.

[Haegan2005]

How about a capacitor design? With a slow recharge reactor. When I think of fighter beam weapons I think also of anti-fighter uses, not antishipping, though that could be useful as well.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

How about a capacitor design? With a slow recharge reactor. When I think of fighter beam weapons I think also of anti-fighter uses, not antishipping, though that could be useful as well.

The last fighter above has a slow recharge laser, firing every 135 seconds, with a tiny reactor putting out 0.2 energy every 5 seconds.

The problem with beam weapons on fighters is that I am trying to keep the game internally consistent. If I create some type of mini-beam weapon for fighters, I can't think of any real reason why ships couldn't also mount a similar weapon to use against both fighters and missiles. Ships would also be able to carry a considerable number of mini-beams, making missiles far less useful.

In modern day warfare, the most useful anti-fighter weapon is a missile and the same applies in Aurora. Unless I can think of some way of giving a fighter a small, short-range anti-fighter weapon that ships couldn't use for some reason, I am not sure how fighters could have small, effective beam weapons while retaining internal consistency.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Apart from the mechanics of this idea, I am also interested in opinions as to whether this would work better in game terms compared to the existing fighter mechanics.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Apart from the mechanics of this idea, I am also interested in opinions as to whether this would work better in game terms compared to the existing fighter mechanics. Bear in mind that with these mechanics fighters behave like ships and can do everything a ship can, so you could station a combat space patrol or AEW in your formation as you can with escorts. You can also have mixed fighter groups and fighters can fire only part of their weapon load. Finally, fighters could be stationed in orbit so you wouldn't need bases for them, although bases still might be an idea if you want to conceal them. The main disadvantages would be that fighters are larger than before, although they probably cost about the same, therefore you couldn't carry as many on carriers. Also, if they use the same mechanics as ships they are a little less powerful, much longer ranged and potentially harder to kill.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Because of their small size, fighters do not require the same level of structural integrity. Therefore they only use armour in certain key areas and require only half the armour amount of larger vessels.

I have been playing around with the mechanics for this. I realise that the proposed fighters need to receive 2 points of damage to penetrate the armour, which means smaller missiles wouldn't be any use. However, fighters are much larger than missiles so they need some protection from a single point of damage. Therefore I have set the damage code so that the limited fighter armour described above will only affect approximately 50% of hits. Therefore a 1 point hit against a fighter will have a 50% chance of causing damage.

Steve

[kdstubbs]

Steve,
       I think you should reconsider your slow load fighter missile concept.  If you will remember, the Bear Bomber, and the B-1 and B-2 Bombers carry rotary lauchers for up to six cruise missiles.  These could be ground attack or anti-ship missiles.  There is nothing physically impossible about mounting rotary fired anti-fighter missiles, so given that the ratio between the fighter size and the fighter missile is not large, what would be wrong with designing a dog fighting missile with rotary laucher, and what would be wrong about a PD laser on your fighter.  

      If you will recall the Primary Beam used in Edward E Smith's Lensman series, one shot lasing modules, that allowed the ship to generate a beam of very high intensity--that burned out the laser cavity with each shot.  So the Primary had to reload (much like the X-Ray laser concept of the thebans in Crusade).  

     I cannot imagine a warship or a fighter (160-215 tons) not having some type of reactor--some power reactors are very small--the Nerva propulsion system developed by Nasa in the 60's and 70's was very small

Just a thought

Kevin

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Steve,
       I think you should reconsider your slow load fighter missile concept.  If you will remember, the Bear Bomber, and the B-1 and B-2 Bombers carry rotary lauchers for up to six cruise missiles.  These could be ground attack or anti-ship missiles.  There is nothing physically impossible about mounting rotary fired anti-fighter missiles, so given that the ratio between the fighter size and the fighter missile is not large, what would be wrong with designing a dog fighting missile with rotary laucher, and what would be wrong about a PD laser on your fighter.  

The slow reload is to add a disadvantage to small launchers. If a small launcher reloads as quickly as a large launcher then no one would ever use anything but small launchers as they would have no disadvantages. There is also no reason within the game why full size warships could not use the same launchers as the fighters so that would multiply the number of missiles that could be launched by four times for all ships. That's not necessarily unreasonable in the real world where ships often fire off their entire missile load very quickly but I want to create a more pre-pod Honor Harrington type feel to missile combat.

However, I am working on adding an even smaller launcher, probably 15% normal size, that can only be reloaded inside a hangar. That would allow fighters to have something very similar to the six-shot rotary launcher you described and it would still only be the size of a one regular ship-based launcher. This may also be useful for Fast Attack Craft, although their greater endurance and range may mean they are better with small but reloadable launchers. Full size ships probably would not make as much use of these launchers because they would need a huge hangar for reloading but it would still be possible to build some type of massive one shot warship if required, as long as you had a huge mothership able to reload it.

The problem with the small PD laser for fighters is that it has to follow the same rules as those on ships. If I create a small, effective beam weapon for fighters then there is no reason why ships couldn't use it too and suddenly missiles become far less effective. I need to maintain internal consistency within the game.

If you will recall the Primary Beam used in Edward E Smith's Lensman series, one shot lasing modules, that allowed the ship to generate a beam of very high intensity--that burned out the laser cavity with each shot.  So the Primary had to reload (much like the X-Ray laser concept of the thebans in Crusade).  

Some type of one shot beam weapon might be possible, especially something like a torpedo, but again I have to allow ships to be able to do the same thing so I can't create anything unbalancing.

    I cannot imagine a warship or a fighter (160-215 tons) not having some type of reactor--some power reactors are very small--the Nerva propulsion system developed by Nasa in the 60's and 70's was very small

You will be able to build 0.1 HS (5 ton) reactors in v2.6 and mount them on fighters if required. However, they will follow the same rules as the larger ship-based reactors and produce a proportionate amount of power.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Some other rules that would apply to these fighters. They have a maximum size of 500 tons or they are classed as regular ships, which will immediately double their armour amount. They do not require maintenance as long as they are in a hangar but they do require maintenance otherwise. As it is probably most efficient not to include spares on most fighter designs, leaving them floating in space away from a hangar or planetary maintenance facilities will not be a good idea. They will also automatically rewind their overhaul clock inside a mothership at 5x speed and slowly replace spares if they need them.

Fighters cannot be constructed or refitted by regular shipyards. They are still built by fighter factories and will be placed in a designated fleet when completed. This will make it easier to build large numbers of fighters and will also allow smaller colonies to potentially build their own fighters for defence, although they will need to build some basic orbital bases or PDCs for the reloading facilities.

Steve

[kdstubbs]

given that fighter missiles will be much smaller than ship fired missiles, they will have a corresponding range limitation and smaller magazine.  Lets say A fighter might only mount one rotary launcher and only six missiles for dog fighting, but would only be able to mount one or two anti-ship missiles.  Also in space a gatling gun, or fighter rail gun might be useful for close in combat.  Gatling guns in the American civil war came in 25 and 37 mm, and in some cases fired a one pound shell.  So the size of the gatling gun is relative.

The fighter rail gun could give you some useful advantages--especially if they fired one kilogram shells at very high velocities.  Missiles could be targeted by computer controlled gatling guns, or small diameter lasers in pulse mode--giving higher watts per square centimeter.

Again steve, just a thought

Kevin

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

given that fighter missiles will be much smaller than ship fired missiles, they will have a corresponding range limitation and smaller magazine.  Lets say A fighter might only mount one rotary launcher and only six missiles for dog fighting, but would only be able to mount one or two anti-ship missiles.  

That should be taked care of by the existing mechanics. Players can build missile launchers able to fire a variety of different missile sizes and the cut-down versions of those launchers will be proportionate to the full-size versions. Equally they can build different missile types of various sizes that could be intended for anti-ship or anti-fighter work.

Also in space a gatling gun, or fighter rail gun might be useful for close in combat.  Gatling guns in the American civil war came in 25 and 37 mm, and in some cases fired a one pound shell.  So the size of the gatling gun is relative.

The fighter rail gun could give you some useful advantages--especially if they fired one kilogram shells at very high velocities.  Missiles could be targeted by computer controlled gatling guns, or small diameter lasers in pulse mode--giving higher watts per square centimeter.

I have been thinking about something similar. However, to maintain consistency anything that works for a fighter should also work for a ship. So if the gatling weapon is small and can destroy a fighter then it can certainly destroy a missile and ships will want to mount plenty of the small anti-fighter/anti-missile gatlings, which will be far more effective on a mass basis than the existing laser weapons, making missiles are suddenly less effective. The problem is finding a small fighter weapon that doesn't cause problems elsewhere within the game.

I was thinking along the lines of a gatling that could be used by ships to protect only themselves at point blank range and did one point of damage. That would make it useless against other ships or to protect other ships, making it worse than the existing lasers for escorts. Unfortunately, to make it useful to a fighter it would want to use that weapon offensively, to target other fighters or even missiles. Which then begs the question of why ships couldn't use it "offensively" to shoot down missiles heading for other ships, which then makes it better than the existing lasers and I am back to square one. I am just not sure there can ever be a effective small, fighter "beam weapon" that won't break the game in some other area.

Steve

[sloanjh]

Some thoughts:

The problem with beam weapons on fighters is that I am trying to keep the game internally consistent. If I create some type of mini-beam weapon for fighters, I can't think of any real reason why ships couldn't also mount a similar weapon to use against both fighters and missiles. Ships would also be able to carry a considerable number of mini-beams, making missiles far less useful.

I'm actually in the anti-beam camp - I don't see a reason to have a beam weapon just for the sake of having a beam weapon.  That being said, I do think there should be some sort of "gun" system, whether it be flechettes, high-speed rail-gun (similar to a Vulcan), or mini-beams for dogfighting.  Note that modern warships do mount such systems - Phalanx is basically a Vulcan cannon combined with a larger ammo magazine and an AI system (the radar/computer) to shoot at incoming targets.  It is only secondary armament because it is essentially a point-blank/dogfight weapon.

This brings up the issue of dogfighting, and the "why pay for life-support" in the missile vs. drone question.  What if you gave cockpits (fighter and possibly GB) a "dogfight fire-control" capability that allowed the ship's speed to be used as a tracking speed and can be used for any dogfighting (i.e. non-missile) system?  (You might want to include the requirement that any target be detected by the ship's own sensors.)  The way that this helps is the following:

Dogfight fire-control allows fighter (and possibly GB) to pay a much lower mass cost for dogfighting systems, since they don't require on-board fire control.

A ship-mounted dogfighting system capable of engaging independent targets is much less useful, since it has to pay for a high-speed fire control for each target, i.e. the total mass cost of a 10x weaker ship-mounted mini-beam might be only 2x smaller than the corresponding "normal" mount, since both need a full-blown fire-control system to be able to do independent targeting.

If a 10x weaker mini-beam has 10x shorter range, then it will only be useful as a point-blank system.  If your size vs. range is set up so range goes up with size faster than linearly (e.g. 10x weaker is only 5x smaller), then a single full-strength beam will be much more effective at short range in an anti-ship role than a bunch of mini-beams - think of the difference between 18 inch guns and 20mm AA mounts on WW II battleships.

If you allow "light" (0.5) armor in all ship classes (not just fighters) then that puts the concept of "thin-skinned" non-combatants into the game, gives fighters something to shoot at with their dogfighting weapons - think of the scene in Red Storm Rising where the F-15s strafe the Russian freighter.  There would be a strong temptation to put light armor on GB (since they rely on speed rather than armor for defense), which in turn could lead to anti-GB fighter designs.

So I've done a complete 180 here - I think a small, short-range mini-beam system could be set up for fighters that would not skew ship-to-ship play balance, and would increase the richness of "combined arms" tactics between ships, GB, and fighters, especially if 0.5 armor were allowed on ships and GB as well.  The one play balance tweak that might be needed would be to increase missile speed (both to make them a more difficult fire-control target and so that fighters can't keep up with them) - a typical light (anti-fighter) missile should probably be 2x or 4x faster than an equivalent-tech fighter.

In modern day warfare, the most useful anti-fighter weapon is a missile and the same applies in Aurora. Unless I can think of some way of giving a fighter a small, short-range anti-fighter weapon that ships couldn't use for some reason, I am not sure how fighters could have small, effective beam weapons while retaining internal consistency.

Two counter-examples:

The Phantom was originally an all-missile design.  Vulcan cannon were added once it saw action in Vietnam - first in a gun pod and later as an internal system.  I don't think the USAF has designed an all-missile fighter since.

The comment about WWII battleships above reminded me that warship designs (at least for the US in the Pacific) had a LOT more light AA at the end of WWII than at the beginning.  So allowing lots of light anti-missile/anti-fighter mounts on warships has a basis in the past - the trick is figuring out how to keep missiles as a viable weapons system from a play-balance point of view (hence faster missiles).

So for the small, short-range system, I would say there's no need to keep ships from mounting (lots of) them - they'll only be effective as AA and they'll be much less efficient as ship mounts due to the need for (expensive high speed) fire-control.  This is similar to the mass difference between a Phalanx mount on a ship and an internal Vulcan mount on a fighter.

So I guess I am still in the camp that anti-ship mini-beams don't really make sense (unless at point-blank range).  This can be enforced by having the range vs. size curve for beam weapons be quicker than linear.  It is also enforced by the fact that Aurora armor makes one big hit much more effective than many tiny hits.

John