Actualy i did not notice maintance clock rising while they are in hangars on carrier vessel.That is the only place that the maintenance clock will not rise. Anywhere else that is not a boat bay, or hanger bay and they will be adding time to the mainenance clock.
How would the fare against an opponent that uses squadron transit with a jump radius that allows them to recover from jumpblindness before your fighters can reach attack range?
Actually it is not that easy to horde your fighters. The only place that will keep them from running up time on the maintenance clock is in a hanger bay. If they are just at a planet that doesn't do it, even if there is more than enough maintenance facilities available. This means that you can't just produce fighters and have them available whenever you need them. You need a hanger bay and the installation it is in is going to require minerals to maintain.
Brian
But you can horde fighters, they are expendable, nothing more than flesh and steel! If Steve only allows us to use kamikaze fighters...Actually it is not that easy to horde your fighters. The only place that will keep them from running up time on the maintenance clock is in a hanger bay. If they are just at a planet that doesn't do it, even if there is more than enough maintenance facilities available. This means that you can't just produce fighters and have them available whenever you need them. You need a hanger bay and the installation it is in is going to require minerals to maintain.
How would the fare against an oponent that uses squadron transit with a jump radius that allows them to recover from jumpblindness before your fighters can reach attack range?
I have found that Gauss armed fighters for WP defense are pretty nasty.
I was using 10 of these per squadron, along with sensors from a large well armored defense station/hanger.Code: [Select]F-5 Mako class Fighter 250 tons 6 Crew 52.5 BP TCS 5 TH 16.8 EM 0
9600 km/s Armour 2-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2
Annual Failure Rate: 5% IFR: 0.1% Maint Capacity 13 MSP Max Repair 14 MSP Est Time: 5.6 Years
Rolls Royce E740 MPD Fighter Drive (1) Power 48 Fuel Use 6000% Signature 16.8 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 0.6 billion km (17 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R3-33 (1x3) Range 30,000km TS: 9600 km/s Accuracy Modifier 33% RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Durant Indigo/1 Fighter Cannon Control (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 16000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Two to four squadrons on a warp point shredded enemy ships coming through. I was seeing a ship die about every 10 seconds with these guys attacking, the NPR armor was fairly light though, 4 or 5.
F-5 Mako class Fighter 250 tons 6 Crew 52.5 BP TCS 5 TH 16.8 EM 0
9600 km/s Armour 2-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2
Annual Failure Rate: 5% IFR: 0.1% Maint Capacity 13 MSP Max Repair 14 MSP Est Time: 5.6 Years
Rolls Royce E740 MPD Fighter Drive (1) Power 48 Fuel Use 6000% Signature 16.8 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 0.6 billion km (17 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R3-33 (1x3) Range 30,000km TS: 9600 km/s Accuracy Modifier 33% RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Durant Indigo/1 Fighter Cannon Control (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 16000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposesI would say no. Fighters are just very small spacecraft . The difference between then and normal ships is the difference between a Motor Torpedo Boat and a Battleship , not the difference between an F-18 and an Aircraft carrier. This arguement keeps coming round and I have yet to hear a good explanation about why fighters should be different from ships. For Beam fighters that means they will not be effective against ships , they are simply a bad idea .
Do fighters need a conceptual overhaul?
Not by much. Yes armor does get lighter, but not much else does. Really the only other relevent tech the can help with hull space useage in a fighter is fire control. Even that doesn't have much wiggle room.
I was primarily commenting on the fact that, as your tech progresses, you'll be able to carry a larger number of GC fighters in each hanger deck. I fail to see the relevance of the tech cost.Not by much. Yes armor does get lighter, but not much else does. Really the only other relevent tech the can help with hull space useage in a fighter is fire control. Even that doesn't have much wiggle room. Keep in mind that a single hanger is limited to a capacity of 1000t(20hull spaces). Yes, you can build a carrier with more hangers to support the increased number of fighters.
The comparison to a full sized system isn't completely accurate, either, as a full sized system will get only a single burst, while the fighters can get in multiple, the exact amount depending on the enemy's reload speed.No it's not accurate. I only did an off the cuff hs usage comparison. The accuracy comparison is actually worse, the .5hs GC is 1/12th the size of the full size system and 1/20 as accurate. The real point is that logistics side increases at a higher rate to field enough fighters with the reduced systems to equal to potential of the full size system.
Sure, fighters in an anti-missile role can be countered in numerous ways (ECM, armor, faster), but all of the counters result in weaker warheads hitting your ships.Tech, counter tech doesn't always result in weaker hits. It's also a recursive loop argument.
And once you get to the end game engines/BFC, the fighters will almost match their full sized counterparts in a strict PD role simply because they have twice the tracking speed for their BFC and weapon.Max tech arguments are also pointless.
