FACs vs Fighters on Carriers

[Borealis4x (OP)]

In general, do you think FAC sized vessels (1000 tons) make for better carrier launched ships than Fighters (500 tons) despite taking up twice as much room and needing shipyards to produce?

I'm tempted to say yes given the 'bigger is more efficient' philosophy that seems to be prevalent, but I'd like to hear your takes.

Personally I find the prospect of having 1000 tons of ship I don't have to worry about the endurance of to be tempting. You can go all in on all the sexy stuff like speed and weapons if you don't need to worry about silly things like fuel and crew berths since it'll be operating out of a carrier.

[Silvarelion]

I go far more extreme.  My latest carrier launched ships are 30ktons, going 20kkm at magneto plasma.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I go far more extreme.  My latest carrier launched ships are 30ktons, going 20kkm at magneto plasma.

Yeah, having so-called 'fleet carriers' that carry proper ships instead of just strike crafts are something I'd like to do, but only in the super late game. For the rest of the game I think that FACs provide the most amount of available tonnage for your buck seeing as they don't need bridges and can be quickly churned out at shipyards.

[Impassive]

I go far more extreme.  My latest carrier launched ships are 30ktons, going 20kkm at magneto plasma.

Yeah, having so-called 'fleet carriers' that carry proper ships instead of just strike crafts are something I'd like to do, but only in the super late game. For the rest of the game I think that FACs provide the most amount of available tonnage for your buck seeing as they don't need bridges and can be quickly churned out at shipyards.

I could see this being quite good for beam ships and be able to give them a bit more survivability than a fighter and as you said not having to worry as much about fuel etc. I think I'll give FAC carriers a go my next game

[Andrew]

I tried it with slightly larger FAC;s slow and the carrier was intended to fight with them but each FAC carried a large spinal laser or similar weaponso I could effetively carrry multiple spinal lasers on one ship

[lumporr]

A little tangential, but in my latest game, all civilian transport is handled by armourless barges and ~250k (oops I meant 200k) ton tugs, which each come armed with one civilian hangar, one maintenance module, and an engineless FAC stuffed with box launchers. It's saved transports a few different times, and I've found they're handy to have around. No shipping lane is ever undefended!

In fact, engineless FACs classed as "modules" is something I've been experimenting with in my latest game. Adds a lot of flexibility - suddenly, cruisers with 1kt of hangar space can perform otherwise hazardous survey missions, extend range with a fuel module, drop off listening posts, or carry an extra salvo of missiles to a scrap.

As for fighters vs. FACs, I think any doctrine that relies on outnumbering an enemy with a larger number of smaller ships should likely provide as many of those ships as possible. The enemy gun per targey ratio is an important one - perhaps more important than the advantages a cozy amount of tonnage can provide.

[nuclearslurpee]

There are pros and cons either way. The main advantage of a FAC over a fighter is, as you state, better tonnage efficiency, even something as simple as having more weapons per fire control is helpful. This is also the advantage of a 500-ton fighter versus a 250-ton fighter, for example, so it is hardly unique. The advantage of the smaller fighter is that it is harder to detect for the enemy and therefore, at least in principle, safe from retaliation as it closes to weapons range, particularly for missile bombers.

There is also an advantage for large numbers of very small fighters which is that once your craft dies in one hit anyways, the more of them you have the more you can overwhelm the enemy BFCs with sheer numbers, which is one route for large swarms of beam fighters to beat larger fleets. Actually, this is the major reason to even use FACs instead of large ships, otherwise if tonnage efficiency was the sole determinant of combat ability the winning combination would be having as many zeroes as possible in the tonnage measurement.

To sum up, I think both approaches have something going for them and are strong when used correctly. It's all in the fleet doctrine and tactics. 

[Borealis4x (OP)]

There are pros and cons either way. The main advantage of a FAC over a fighter is, as you state, better tonnage efficiency, even something as simple as having more weapons per fire control is helpful. This is also the advantage of a 500-ton fighter versus a 250-ton fighter, for example, so it is hardly unique. The advantage of the smaller fighter is that it is harder to detect for the enemy and therefore, at least in principle, safe from retaliation as it closes to weapons range, particularly for missile bombers.

Does the total tonnage of a task force contribute collectively to detection? For example, if I have a group of 100 250 ton fighters would that group be detected like a 25,000 ton ship would?

[Andrew]

No, its down to the sensor resolution and the size of each target, so a sensor resulution of 25,000 tons would spot a 25,000 ton ship at its rather long maximim range. while it would not spot 1000, 250 ton fighters until they were close enough for that sensor to spot , or they ran into it.
Unless a ship has a sensor tuned for fighters then they can probably avoid detection until they reach the detection range of the resolution 1 antimissile sensors

[Laurence]

A little tangential, but in my latest game, all civilian transport is handled by armourless barges and ~250k ton tugs, which each come armed with one civilian hangar, one maintenance module, and an engineless FAC stuffed with box launchers. It's saved transports a few different times, and I've found they're handy to have around. No shipping lane is ever undefended!

That's interesting.  Could you post a couple designs?

[nuclearslurpee]

Andrew is correct.

To expound a bit (spoilers for NPR ship design hidden for those who enjoy the journey of discovery): NPR fleets usually have a set of sensors covering resolutions 1 (50-ton, anti-missile sensor), 5 (250-ton), 20 (1000-ton), and somewhere north of 100 (5000-ton, general-purpose). If you work through the sensor math, this usually means that FACs of ~1,000 tons will be detected at about 1.6x the range as 500-ton or smaller fighters. This means that against missile-based NPR fleets, fighters can get closer and thus need smaller MFCs/sensors, can use faster/stronger missiles with shorter range, and so on, compared to FACs. Of course, you can also abuse this knowledge to find the tonnage "sweet spots" (around 145 tons for fighters and 630 tons for FACs, incidentally)... the point is simply that playing around the limits of enemy sensor range with your parasite tonnage has a potentially significant effect on your ability to close in without detection and launch from an optimal position. This is one of many reasons why playing a multi-player-race game can be quite interesting, if every race has its own sensor doctrine then gathering intelligence about sensor types can be critical to aid in designing the right counter-force.

Against a beam-only enemy fleet, then it doesn't really matter and you can go nuts with tonnage efficiency.

[lumporr]

A little tangential, but in my latest game, all civilian transport is handled by armourless barges and ~250k ton tugs, which each come armed with one civilian hangar, one maintenance module, and an engineless FAC stuffed with box launchers. It's saved transports a few different times, and I've found they're handy to have around. No shipping lane is ever undefended!

That's interesting.  Could you post a couple designs?

Code: [Select]

TG-01 Osaka  (Tategami class Tug)      200,000 tons       1,903 Crew       7,631.1 BP       TCS 4,000    TH 22,500    EM 0
5625 km/s      Armour 3-304       Shields 0-0       HTK 264      Sensors 5/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
MSP 20,023    Max Repair 625 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 1,000 tons     Tractor Beam     
Kaigun-Chōsa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Flight Crew Berths 20   
Maintenance Modules: 1 module(s) capable of supporting ships of 1,250 tons

Class-A 'Hauler 2500' Ion Drivecore (9)    Power 22500    Fuel Use 1.68%    Signature 2500    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 3,400,000 Litres    Range 182.5 billion km (375 days at full power)

Type A-PD1 Optics (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.4m km    MCR 124.4k km    Resolution 1
Type T-C5 Optics (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km

Code: [Select]

Tama 2 class Weapon Battery      1,000 tons       2 Crew       88.4 BP       TCS 20    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 0      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 18.62
Maint Life 14.93 Years     MSP 53    AFR 32%    IFR 0.4%    1YR 0    5YR 7    Max Repair 2.5 MSP
Magazine 122.5   
Kaigun-Chōsa    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Morale Check Required   


Torpedo Cell Type M (49)     Missile Size: 2.5    Hangar Reload 79 minutes    MF Reload 13 hours
Command-Lock Type PD-1 (1)     Range 2.8m km    Resolution 1
M-Pulse Torpedo Type M5 (49)    Speed: 39,200 km/s    End: 0.3m     Range: 0.6m km    WH: 5    Size: 2.5    TH: 287/172/86

Code: [Select]

Hanzei class Scout Carrier      25,000 tons       546 Crew       2,961.4 BP       TCS 500    TH 3,072    EM 0
6144 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 1-76       Shields 0-0       HTK 117      Sensors 8/5/0/0      DCR 30      PPV 0
Maint Life 1.53 Years     MSP 2,311    AFR 167%    IFR 2.3%    1YR 1,118    5YR 16,763    Max Repair 1228.8 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 5,000 tons     
Kaigun-Daisa    Control Rating 2   BRG   ENG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 100    Morale Check Required   

Event-Collapse Generator Type M-25     Max Ship Size 25000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Class-B 'Explorer 3072' M-Pulse Drive Core (1)    Power 3072    Fuel Use 7.01%    Signature 3072    Explosion 8%
Fuel Capacity 950,000 Litres    Range 97.6 billion km (183 days at full power)

Optics Type A-PD1a (1)     GPS 2     Range 2m km    MCR 181.7k km    Resolution 1
Optics Type T-C8 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km
Optics Type E-C5 (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km

Strike Group
1x Stellar Survey Module   Speed: 1 km/s    Size: 16
6x Mitsubishi Interceptor   Speed: 16804 km/s    Size: 10
1x Booster Module   Speed: 1 km/s    Size: 20
These are the ships that I first designed with this new module system, in a previous game. The scout carrier definitely needs much larger sensors for the survey role it plays here, but it was intended to fill the gap between it and a larger survey design coming in the future, as I was desperate to expand at the time. It would soon be repurposed as a general jump ship for cruiser fleets. Also, in my next run-through of this kind of design, I would do things like make an 800-ton survey module and a 1200-ton fuel module (inefficient with the extra bridge, but still more fuel than before) for round tonnage's sake. Fuel modules could be made by planetary industry, having no military components. You can also generally go absolutely bare bones for modules, since they're not designed to ever be outside of a ship - here's my example of a survey module I posted earlier this week, for instance:

Code: [Select]

MOD-05 Stellar  (Stellar class Survey Module)      800 tons       6 Crew       309.8 BP       TCS 16    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-7       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/3/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.11 Years     MSP 15    AFR 160%    IFR 2.2%    1YR 141    5YR 2,119    Max Repair 100 MSP
Kaigun-Chōsa    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   


Gravitational Survey Sensors (3)   3 Survey Points Per Hour
It's a little more micro, and there were a few things I had to work out (if you ever want a fuel parasite, set the minimum fuel of the carrier to max or it will refuel the parasite after picking it back up!), but I like it a lot! Just thought of a new use - a buoy deployment module! Saves having a dedicated ship for something that only needs to be done once in every system. Though, as long as the size matches, I guess the weapon battery would work fine in that role.

[Jorgen_CAB]

In the end it really is not super important what ships and size of them you use. Bigger is more efficient per tonnage and smaller provide much better stealth capabilities, both thermal and active cross section reflections. The point is rather how you use them.

If you are using missiles as your main form of attacking you always want to be able to fire without them able to fire back... there are basically two ways to do this. Either you use a stealthy platform or you use extremely long range missiles. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

The thing is... under no circumstance do you want to fight on equal terms. This is why stealth or range is so important. In addition to this so is reconnaissance and strategic planning. If they bring 50kt you bring 500kt fleet. The thing is... building a fleet for attacking is so much more expensive than one meant for defence. You don't only need the ships with more engines and fuel, you also need logistics, bases and defences.

What does this have to do with size of strike craft?!?

It does... when you do decide to attack you have to bring something decisive. If this is a fleet ten times stronger or more of a smaller surgical tool is a strategic choice. If you can fly a smaller craft relatively close and fire their missiles without being retaliated you can more or less attack an enemy with impunity and they will not even know where your fleet is. If you attack with your fighters and you somehow misjudged them you might loose some crafts and can withdraw. If you reveal your entire fleet you just put all eggs in one basket and you better not misjudged the situation.

The same thing goes for size of strike crafts... the bigger the craft the more likely it is the opponent will detect them so the longer they reach they must have in order not to be detected. What you gain in efficiency you loose in stealth.

When you then look at the industrial cost of building all these carriers, escorts, strike crafts etc..  you need to judge how you will be able to overmatch the opponent for as low a cost as possible. If you are stealthy you can probably use cheaper engine as speed will not be as important. This goes for both carrier and strike crafts, this reduce costs and increase efficiencies.

In my experience stealth is almost always better than brute force... it is cheaper and safer in the long run.

Now... the AI never adapt to your strategies... so against the AI you can just study their sensor types used and then figure a best size strike craft and what weaponry or missiles you want and you can defeat them quite easily. So... build your strategy around what you know and adapt that doctrine based on facts rather than some stipulated rules. If you are playing a game where there are more than one human run faction it get's complicated real fast but the principals are the same.

[Michael Sandy]

FACs can be very useful parasite craft.  They can be mass produced, and unlike fighters, you can refit them.  And unlike fighters, you can actually have beam FACs that can conceivably out range enemy beams, so they are very useful as pursuit craft, to efficiently destroy or disable an enemy fleet that has exhausted its missiles.

FAC and missile fighters both seek to have a range where they can fire at the enemy with impunity.  So maybe it will be fighters with the smaller cross-section that can get in range to launch, or maybe it will be the FACs which can have a much longer ranged missile fire control.

I don't know if you consider a 3000-4000 ton ship a "FAC", but cloaked parasite craft are also an interesting option.  Early cloaked ships have issues with so much of the ship budget being the cloak, so anything that reduces the rest of the ship budget would greatly increase the payload of a cloaked ship.

[Snoman314]

... unlike fighters, you can refit them. ...

FYI - You can actually refit fighters in a shipyard, same as any other vessel.