Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.

[jiduthie (OP)]

This is a little crazy, I know, but I'm tempted to try it:

Code: [Select]

PROTO-FAC1 class Heavy Fighter    800 tons     87 Crew     194.5 BP      TCS 16  TH 160  EM 0
10000 km/s     Armour 4-7     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 4
Maint Life 3.24 Years     MSP 38    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 5    5YR 82    Max Repair 60 MSP

GB Magneto-plasma Drive E60 (1)    Power 160    Fuel Use 600%    Signature 160    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 3.8 billion km   (4 days at full power)

15cm C6 Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 60,000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 6-6     RM 1    ROF 5        6 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S02 40-10000 (1)    Max Range: 80,000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Thoughts?

[Brian Neumann]

Interesting idea with the carronade fighter.  I would actually use a 15cm laser as you will do a lot more damage at the longer ranges your fire control will handle.  The carronade is basically a 15cm laser with no range multiplier.  It is also a lot cheaper than the laser as 15cm is the smallest size and there is no range multiplier.  A 15cm laser with comparable tech however will be doing at least 4, and probably 5 points of damage all the way to the max range of your fire control.  This might make a big difference in their effectivness.  I would really have to playtest this however to tell if the extra cost was worth it in this case.

Brian

[jiduthie (OP)]

You're right, it's even the same size with the same power requirement. Strange.

[Brian Neumann]

The main difference between lasers and carronades is the development cost.  This also means that for a given caliber weapon the cost to design the weapon is going to be much cheaper for the carronade.  There is one other difference and that is the damage pattern.  Lasers are deep penetrators while carronades do there damage like railguns with broader craters.  A 30 cm laser is going to get through a couple more levels of armour than the 30cm carronade.  They will do the same total damage, just in a different pattern.  Also the laser will probably do more damage at anything beyond point blank as it gets a range multiplier while the carronade is stuck without one.

Personally I almost never research carronades as the cheaper cost just does not balance out the range penalties compared to the laser.

Brian

[Charlie Beeler]

I couldn't disagree more. Sure, in a one on one matchup the 5% to hit rating would be too low to rely on, but when a single hanger deck can hold eight low tech variants and ten high tech ones (nine if you adjust your BFC to track at your max speed, 200k/sec, heh), you'll never be in such a situation. You'll be looking at reduced overall firepower since a larger percentage of the tonnage of your fighter force will be engines/etc, but you'll gain a massive speed advantage.

Also, remember to take full advantage of the +power, -efficiency tech line for the fighter engines.

adjust your BFC to track at your max speed, 200k/sec

Not going to happen without a change to the database.  The best BFC tracking speed is 100k/kps with a level 12 system at 4x tracking speed. 

I know that you disagree with my analysis of reduced GC accuracy, but so far I haven't seen any demostration to refute it.  I would really like to see one that realisticly demostrates that accepting a sub 5% chance to hit is stratigicly and tacticly effective and acceptable.

[Ashery]

Not going to happen without a change to the database.  The best BFC tracking speed is 100k/kps with a level 12 system at 4x tracking speed. 

I know that you disagree with my analysis of reduced GC accuracy, but so far I haven't seen any demostration to refute it.  I would really like to see one that realisticly demostrates that accepting a sub 5% chance to hit is stratigicly and tacticly effective and acceptable.

Except you failed to factor in the free 4x from being a fighter restricted BFC. Now, the fact that that doesn't restrict a player from further increasing the tracking speed may be a bug, but it's currently possible to hit the 200k mark.

In terms of PD, I'd agree with you that one would want to use larger gauss designs simply because you need PD to be as consistent as possible. If I had to choose between taking down a guaranteed four missiles or flipping a coin to see if I'd take down either eight or zero, I'd take the four in a heartbeat.

For the less critical applications of gauss weapons, however, that choice isn't as easy to make. Fighters benefit heavily from the high speeds that miniaturized gauss weapons allow, and the only weapon smaller than a fully miniaturized gauss cannon is a size three or smaller box launcher.

The thing is, statistically speaking, the gauss weapons have the same expected hit rate per HS, with the lone exception of the 5HS/85% version, which is marginally better than the others (It should be 83.33%).

[Charlie Beeler]

Except you failed to factor in the free 4x from being a fighter restricted BFC. Now, the fact that that doesn't restrict a player from further increasing the tracking speed may be a bug, but it's currently possible to hit the 200k mark.

In terms of PD, I'd agree with you that one would want to use larger gauss designs simply because you need PD to be as consistent as possible. If I had to choose between taking down a guaranteed four missiles or flipping a coin to see if I'd take down either eight or zero, I'd take the four in a heartbeat.

For the less critical applications of gauss weapons, however, that choice isn't as easy to make. Fighters benefit heavily from the high speeds that miniaturized gauss weapons allow, and the only weapon smaller than a fully miniaturized gauss cannon is a size three or smaller box launcher.

The thing is, statistically speaking, the gauss weapons have the same expected hit rate per HS, with the lone exception of the 5HS/85% version, which is marginally better than the others (It should be 83.33%).

Ah, you're correct that I didn't consider fighter BFC and I should have.  But your not taking into account the minimum tech to achieve that speed.  It requires the 9th level and costs 495,000 research points alone to reach.  At that same tech level you'll at best be seeing 125t fighters with speeds around 45k/kps which means you will have to turret that GC to use the BFC's superior tracking speed.  Offensive missile will average 125k/kps and AMM/CM will be somewhere above 125% of that speed. 

That really isn't the relevent argument.  Can you consistently field 12 platforms with the smallest GC to attempt to match the potential of 1 full size system?  Assuming that you can fit the smaller system into a 125t fighter (that's only 2.5hs), the required support just went up by a factor of 12.  That is the strategic and logistic fail.  It's a tactical wash at best. 

[Ashery]

Ah, you're correct that I didn't consider fighter BFC and I should have.  But your not taking into account the minimum tech to achieve that speed.  It requires the 9th level and costs 495,000 research points alone to reach.  At that same tech level you'll at best be seeing 125t fighters with speeds around 45k/kps which means you will have to turret that GC to use the BFC's superior tracking speed.  Offensive missile will average 125k/kps and AMM/CM will be somewhere above 125% of that speed. 

That really isn't the relevent argument.  Can you consistently field 12 platforms with the smallest GC to attempt to match the potential of 1 full size system?  Assuming that you can fit the smaller system into a 125t fighter (that's only 2.5hs), the required support just went up by a factor of 12.  That is the strategic and logistic fail.  It's a tactical wash at best. 

Err?

...a single hanger deck can hold eight low tech variants and ten high tech ones (nine if you adjust your BFC to track at your max speed, 200k/sec, heh)...

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.

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. 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. 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.

[Panopticon]

I usually use Meson armed gunboats as system defense ships, I can usually fit one or two smallish guns on one boat without sacrificing a lot of speed. They are handy for stopping the almost inevitable tiny missile ships that all my NPRs seem to love to send ahead of their main fleets. They mostly do this by taking a few hits and using their high speed to throw accuracy off and run their magazines dry.

Also nice as commerce raiders and to deal with scouts, and for the odd Invader whose shields I can't get through any other way.

[Peter Rhodan]

Missiles are still better than any of these options - improve you missile tech and ordenance production rate

My new Mk IV AMM corvette has 6 launchers and 3 MFCs (372 missiles)- can see and hit a fighter at 10mK and can  engage 3 targets with 2 missiles on each every 5 second pulse.... you a going to need a LOT of fighters to get anywhere near beam range of 6 of these things -

[Charlie Beeler]

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. 

For agruements sake assume that it takes a 500t fighter to field a 6hs GC and 125t fighter to field a .5hs GC.  Assuming a carrier with only 1 hanger you can field 2 500t fighters or 8 125t fighters.  The larger fighters are fielding 12hs of weapons and the light fighter are only fielding 4hs of weapons.  To make matters worse there is a much lower damage potential in the smaller fighters for the same hanger capacity.  You need 3x the hanger capacity too field the same weapons hs and 5x to field the same damage potential.

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.


This has really drifted from the OP's question.  No matter what beam system you place in a fighter it has to survive to attack range, in the current Aurora environment this is a low order probability. 

[Thiosk]

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. 

This is a thing: I always thought of a fighter as a guy (or girl, or wormlike alien) who pointed their fighter at something and pulls the trigger-- so the pilot IS the fire control...

Do fighters need a conceptual overhaul?  I have always felt that the best counter for fighters should be fighters, so fighter ECM should dramatically increase in effectiveness to protect against missiles and ships, but that shouldn't effect fighter on fighter combat.  But if we made them much more effective at short ranges... I don't know that the AI could handle it too well.  As it stands, im just going to use them as glorified planetary defense squadrons and intense strike groups.

[voknaar]

The only use beam armed fighters have to me would be against fleets that have expended their defencive and offensive missile stocks, as a clean up crew to run & gun them down. As such only a small number would be used.

[Andrew]

Do fighters need a conceptual overhaul?

I 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 .

[chrislocke2000]

To me, attacking a hostile fleet with beam weapons is like attacking a current carrier group with just machine guns on your fast jets. Granted, if you sent enough aircraft you are going to do some damage but not without loosing a whole host of fighters.

Compare that to the same fighters attacking some commercial shipping or a very lightly armed ship and you get a far better result, again reflected in current mechanics.

So all in all think beam armed fighters v hostile fleets about work. I would however like to see something that makes them better in fighter to fighter combat.