Yuck!  No thanks to the pointless, nasty Weberism from me.  A nuclear explosion in space is not going to shut down your sensors (especially our uber-TN ones).  Even if you do create a small area of local disruption for a short while (and remember this is an expanding sphere of "disruption" getting weaker by the second), you're just going to move your ship a few thousand kms in any of the many directions available to you and look around it or wait until it gets so diffuse you can see through it.  Even if you fire lots of missiles and create a bigger shield/wall, again, I just move a bit and "hey, look, there they are".  If you can fire enough missiles to create a large and disruptive enough area to block sensors that requires any significant amount of time to move to see around it (and is so intense it won't be transparent for long enough), then stop messing about and shoot them at the ships instead and blow them up.

Stephen

Quote from: "AtomikKrab"

Quote from: "quintin522"

Hmm...this has given me an idea for the suggestions list. In the Honorverse, they would burn out the enemy missile's guidance system using ECM. While I don't believe this is already in the game, but if it was a ECM Fighter would be even better than a PD one.

along with that I'd like to see using nuclear warheads to blind the enemy, like the Havenite Triple Ripple.

When I finally get around to my full EW rewrite, I will be creating a variety of deception tactics. Something along these lines could probably be added at that point.

Steve

Quote from: "AtomikKrab"

Quote from: "quintin522"

Hmm...this has given me an idea for the suggestions list. In the Honorverse, they would burn out the enemy missile's guidance system using ECM. While I don't believe this is already in the game, but if it was a ECM Fighter would be even better than a PD one.

along with that I'd like to see using nuclear warheads to blind the enemy, like the Havenite Triple Ripple.

When I finally get around to my full EW rewrite, I will be creating a variety of deception tactics. Something along these lines could probably be added at that point.

Steve

This means for lower tech levels you can make a fairly small fire control x.5 range, x1 speed that is just as likely to hit the missiles as the larger fire control on a ship with turrets would be.  If your fighter is fast enough then the turret is not needed, otherwise you might want the turret.

One thing to remember is that the fire control for fighters is not the same as for other ships.  There is a fighter only fire control and the benifit is that it starts with x4 speed multiplier, without having a bigger unit.

For example  if your fire control is speed 3000, then the base speed for fighters is 12000 km/s.  

This means for lower tech levels you can make a fairly small fire control x.5 range, x1 speed that is just as likely to hit the missiles as the larger fire control on a ship with turrets would be.  If your fighter is fast enough then the turret is not needed, otherwise you might want the turret.

Brian

Very Babylon 5 Earth Alliance.  I heartily approve  

I can't see why it shouldn't work as fighters are essentially just small ships.  Position them on the threat axis and set them to area defence or keep 'em with the fleet and set them on point blank (I like to think of the T-bolts with Agamemnon against the Clarkstown there), and they ought to engage any incoming.

Turret size and necessary tracking speed for the fire control might make it too big for a fighter to do the role effectively though.  However, your fighters will be going pretty quickly usually, so you might not need a turret.  Fiddle with some designs and see.  You might be better off with a gunboat.

Stephen