Fighters!Fighters!Fighters!

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, you can build a carrier that's little more than a floating hulk: Maneuver 4 (still need power for jump), no armor, no weapons, no this, no that, and you can bring an awful lot of firepower to a battle. Including missiles turrets or not for a 100,000 ton carrier does wonders for potential figuring out of costs, but is it realistic when a carrier's biggest threat might be a long range high thrust build where a handful of missiles could mean the difference between survival and death by that torpedo pursuit fighter I put up. And how realistic is it not having M9 for the carrier when the rest of the fleet is M9... and so forth.

Carriers or tenders have a severe tactical problem. Now they at least have a chance given the new rangebands Very Distant and Far. They have to be defenceless, carriers with high manoeuvre and some defences are insanely expensive (per ton of carried craft).

Your torpedo bombers have to get in close, they cannot launch at Distant range. (Salvoes of 1 missile with a -6 will miss). Before you are that close you will have met the enemies fighters or carried craft.

But carriers also have an advantage. A J-4 carrier is expensive, but very possible, roughly a J-4 carrier is 33% more expensive than the same J-3 carrier. A J-4 battleship even at TL15 is roughly 75% more expensive than the same J-3 ship. (Random example builds, YMMV).

[wbnc]

50 ton Patrol Fighter.

Disturbingly cheap, they should defeat my MCr 100 designs with ease.

Close Configuration would give you a few more Hullpoints, at very little extra cost. It could mean surviving another hit...

Your Armour calculations seems a bit off, I get 7.5 dT and MCr 1.5.

Radiation Shielding is highly recommended, without it Radiation weapons are rather lethal to the crew.

Manoeuvre Drive is much cheaper than Reaction Drives (in tonnage). You could have a 7 G Manoeuvre Drive at TL12.

The 1 dT of power plant fuel only gives an endurance of 4 weeks, I've tried to reason around that but the rules are clear and harsh.

The Plasma Gun is a TL11 component, at TL12 you can only tech upgrade it with 1 advantage. Long Range requires 2 advantages. I made the same mistake with Fusion Guns at TL 15... The trusty Particle Beam is our friend. The Plasma Gun is only MCr 2.5.

I focused tightly on pure basic combat power, weapons, armor,thrust and nothing else...at the lowest cost per unit possible.So it comes in fairly cheap.... weapons and armor are cheap compared to add on systems like stealth ECM,and advanced systems. If I was wanting to really shave pennies I would go with the two improved Pulse lasers one turret one fixed. one drawback that could be exploited with this desing i it has limited missile resistance...and lock on is easier since it has no ECM/Stealth/Etc. I'm counting on actively destroying incoming missiles being more effective cost wise, than jamming and stealth...a few test fights would prove/disprove that theory.

a more advanced fighter would detect, and be able to lock on well before this fighter could close to gun range. the reliance on Reaction thrusters for high thrust limits the time it can evade. as well as how long it can pursue another fighter.

alright made some tweaks...and dagnabbit...proof read three times and redo calculations twice ,and ya still miss spaces where you have the wrong numbers...I forget to change a number when I tweak, and rework a design

Nice call on the Closed structure, a bit more expensive but worth it...and added a reinforced hull for good measure....looked at the reflec option but 5 MCr per unit is just a touch high on the bean counter scale.

I was reading the fuel requirement as being the smallest amount you could carry not the amount the reactor burned...seems to break a logical fuel consumption scale oh well....I'll go with it.

Plasma gun...
Looked at wrong revision the rules...In he older copy long range was one slot...so switched to particle beam

[AnotherDilbert]

alright made some tweaks...and dagnabbit...proof read three times and redo calculations twice ,and ya still miss spaces where you have the wrong numbers...I forget to change a number when I tweak, and rework a design

I know how you feel, I have found errors in all the designs I have put up...

Now you have to consider software, you need Point Defence for the laser, and you want Fire Control and Evade. But you can only run one of them at a time... Decisions, decisions...

[Nerhesi]

AnotherDilbert/Chas:

I notice it's virtual crew 0. So what is the gunner-turret and pilot skill? Are we saying these things are flying with pilot 0, gunner(turret) 0?

[Chas]

Yes, you can build a carrier that's little more than a floating hulk: Maneuver 4 (still need power for jump), no armor, no weapons, no this, no that, and you can bring an awful lot of firepower to a battle. Including missiles turrets or not for a 100,000 ton carrier does wonders for potential figuring out of costs, but is it realistic when a carrier's biggest threat might be a long range high thrust build where a handful of missiles could mean the difference between survival and death by that torpedo pursuit fighter I put up. And how realistic is it not having M9 for the carrier when the rest of the fleet is M9... and so forth.

Carriers or tenders have a severe tactical problem. Now they at least have a chance given the new rangebands Very Distant and Far. They have to be defenceless, carriers with high manoeuvre and some defences are insanely expensive (per ton of carried craft).

But carriers also have an advantage. A J-4 carrier is expensive, but very possible, roughly a J-4 carrier is 33% more expensive than the same J-3 carrier. A J-4 battleship even at TL15 is roughly 75% more expensive than the same J-3 ship. (Random example builds, YMMV).

Yes to all of this. Which is why I'm saying the cost paradigm is breaking down. J4 as Imperial Navy standard is hugely expensive relatively, not just in cost but in the relative firepower available to a Jump 3 ship. An Imperial Navy standard J4 ships vs. a Solimani J3 TL14 ship will lose big time cost-wise and big time firepower-wise. I've mentioned before there ought to be a balancing factor and might have an idea here... I'll mull this over an bit more and maybe plug it.

The tactical issue needs further review also once the fleet battle rules get presented.

[AnotherDilbert]

Escort carrier.
Civilian grade (budget) hull and drives.
Streamlined with fuel processors (24 h).
The only military concession is good sensors and ECM with 50 operators. I really do not want to be surprised.
J-4, M-2, no armour. 1100 crew, mostly flight crew.
Carries 100 70 dT fighters in full hangars. I guess the launch tube thread is heading in roughly that direction tonnagewise.
1200 dT cargo for spare parts and supplies.
GCr 15.7, so MCr 157 per carried craft.

Code: Select all

TL 15                             HullP       15713      
                                  16200            
                       Desired  Rat  #  dTonn  Cost  Power  Hardp  Crew
Hull                                    45000         9000   450  
Config Streamlined          2    2             2138      
Hull strength  Light        1    1            
Repair Drones               1    1        450    90      
                  
JumpD     Budget, Late      4    4   1   4505  5068  18000         129
ManœuvreD Budget, EneIneff  2    2   1    900  1350  11250          26
PowerP                               1   1351  2701  27010          39
                  
Fuel, Jump                  4    4   1  18000        
Fuel, Power                 4    4   1    135        
Fuel Purification        24 h 24 h   1    900    45      
                  
Command Bridge              1    1         80   338      
    Holographic             1                    84              
Comp  CORE/100             20  100   1          130      
Backup Comp  m/35           7   35   1           30      
    /fib                    1    1               80
                  
Sensors  Advanced           9    4   1      5     5      6    
Array  Distributed          9    3   1     10    11      
Extension Net               9    1   1    450   450      
Signal Processing Enhanced  9    2   1      2     8      2    
Countermeasures  Military   9    2   1     15    28      2    
                  
Staterooms               100%  596 596   2384   298      
Common Areas              25%  25%   1    596    60      
Cargo                                    1217        

Docking Space   70 dT       0              
Full Hangar     70 dT     100           14000  2800                600

[AnotherDilbert]

AnotherDilbert/Chas:

I notice it's virtual crew 0. So what is the gunner-turret and pilot skill? Are we saying these things are flying with pilot 0, gunner(turret) 0?

My drones are flying with skill-0. They can hit a barn from the inside sometimes. But there is a lot of them..

[wbnc]

alright made some tweaks...and dagnabbit...proof read three times and redo calculations twice ,and ya still miss spaces where you have the wrong numbers...I forget to change a number when I tweak, and rework a design

I know how you feel, I have found errors in all the designs I have put up...

Now you have to consider software, you need Point Defence for the laser, and you want Fire Control and Evade. But you can only run one of them at a time... Decisions, decisions...

In theory have all three, and let the crew decide which one they use depending on situation..that's actually one of the things I would point out in the write up is the poor computing power frcingthe pilot and gunner to use the computer programs based on the immediate situation.

one option would be for these ships to fly in pairs, the wingman using point defense, and the lead ship running fire control

[AnotherDilbert]

Now you have to consider software, you need Point Defence for the laser, and you want Fire Control and Evade. But you can only run one of them at a time... Decisions, decisions...

In theory have all three, and let the crew decide which one they use depending on situation..that's actually one of the things I would point out in the write up is the poor computing power frcingthe pilot and gunner to use the computer programs based on the immediate situation.

one option would be for these ships to fly in pairs, the wingman using point defense, and the lead ship running fire control

Evade/2 MCr 2
Fire Control/3 MCr 6
Point Defence/2 MCr 12
You have just turned your MCr 30 fighter into a MCr 50 fighter.

[Nerhesi]

AnotherDilbert/Chas:

I notice it's virtual crew 0. So what is the gunner-turret and pilot skill? Are we saying these things are flying with pilot 0, gunner(turret) 0?

My drones are flying with skill-0. They can hit a barn from the inside sometimes. But there is a lot of them..

Very cheap and disposable I see.

Isnt that hitting on a 13+ against dodging? You'd be facing Evade 3 and Pilot 2 pilots? This isn't even taking into account whether you win or lose the dog-fight (I guess you're counting on winning the dogfight due to numbers?)

[AnotherDilbert]

Very cheap and disposable I see.

Isnt that hitting on a 13+ against dodging? You'd be facing Evade 3 and Pilot 2 pilots? This isn't even taking into account whether you win or lose the dog-fight (I guess you're counting on winning the dogfight due to numbers?)

I did a mock fight last page:

Assumptions: The drones will win dogfight, because of superior numbers, and choose Adjacent range. The drones will hit on 9+ (28%) and do an estimated average damage of 1 (4D ≈ 14 + low effect). The fighter is using 3 particle, it will auto hit and have an estimated 50% chance of doing damage (3D ≈ 10.5 + high effect). The fighter has, say, 15 G left to dodge with, 15 drone attacks will miss. The drones can dodge as much as they want, but with Pilot-0 there is no effect.

I'm basically hoping to have more drones than you have dodges. Or I concentrate fire from 100 drones on the same target. Enemy fighter generally are not overendowed with computer software.

The drones are clearly not invincible, but can be a complement e.g.: A missile boat defends against a fighter attack, the boat releases a bunch of drones. The enemy fighters now have to defend against missiles and the drones. Take wbnc's Patrol Fighter, it can run Evade/2 or Point Defence/2, not both.

We can also remote control the drones, and use better skills, at the cost of 2 dT stateroom per drone in the carrying ship.

[wbnc]

Now you have to consider software, you need Point Defence for the laser, and you want Fire Control and Evade. But you can only run one of them at a time... Decisions, decisions...

In theory have all three, and let the crew decide which one they use depending on situation..that's actually one of the things I would point out in the write up is the poor computing power frcingthe pilot and gunner to use the computer programs based on the immediate situation.

one option would be for these ships to fly in pairs, the wingman using point defense, and the lead ship running fire control

Evade/2 MCr 2
Fire Control/3 MCr 6
Point Defence/2 MCr 12
You have just turned your MCr 30 fighter into a MCr 50 fighter.

Yes, yes it did..several members of the Budget oversight committee just required medical attention due to hemorrhaging from the ears...

The cost of software for small craft is amazingly high a decent set of programs cost almost as much as the fighter itself. which is where the question of cost versus return comes in..is it more cost effective to nearly double the price, or do without the software to buy more fighters. since the idea is a low cost, sell em by the dozen design. The software would be the most likely area to cut corners, if you allow for the bean counters getting involved..

I think I'll leave the software empty, and adjust it when I use it in a scenario....basically let the buyer handle the software themselves.

[Nerhesi]

I did a mock fight last page:
Assumptions: The drones will win dogfight, because of superior numbers, and choose Adjacent range.

Can I poke a bit.. quickly?
How are they choosing adjacent range when they're going to be some of the slowest fighters around? They're 9G total correct?

The drones will hit on 9+ (28%)

How is 9+ assumption reached? Sorry - I'm unclear here.

I'm basically hoping to have more drones than you have dodges. Or I concentrate fire from 100 drones on the same target. Enemy fighter generally are not overendowed with computer software.

That is a good assumption - overwhelm their dodges. But I would think evade software is key, especially when I realise my enemy is using a ton of drones as it can mean the difference from hitting every 5th shot to hitting every 36th shot.. or possibly never hitting if I dodge or if I win the dog fight.

What is interesting is the minimum Armour weight of 1 ton (MGT1) is gone (just an observation)

[AnotherDilbert]

I did a mock fight last page:
Assumptions: The drones will win dogfight, because of superior numbers, and choose Adjacent range.

Can I poke a bit.. quickly?
How are they choosing adjacent range when they're going to be some of the slowest fighters around? They're 9G total correct?

I thought I read that the winner of the dogfight choose distance and firing arc. Checking I see I was wrong. There goes the Fusion Gun...

The drones will hit on 9+ (28%)

How is 9+ assumption reached? Sorry - I'm unclear here.

Well I didn't show my calculations. ToHit: +0[skill] +0[software] +2[dogfight] -3[Evade] = -1 => Hit on 9+.

I'm basically hoping to have more drones than you have dodges. Or I concentrate fire from 100 drones on the same target. Enemy fighter generally are not overendowed with computer software.

That is a good assumption - overwhelm their dodges. But I would think evade software is key, especially when I realise my enemy is using a ton of drones as it can mean the difference from hitting every 5th shot to hitting every 36th shot.. or possibly never hitting if I dodge or if I win the dog fight.

I assumed Evade/3 was active in my example. Stacking up defensive modifiers would be the way to defeat cheap drones. Cheap fighters will not have the computer for Evade/3.

[Nerhesi]

Ok - so with the range issue out of the way, you definitely want a close-range weapon. Now before we carry on.. are you using High-Tech weaponry, hence the particle turret?

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, so far I see them as legal. Until they are banned...

My dogmatic objection to the High Technology chapter is about the campaign-wrecking alternative FTL drives available there.

[AnotherDilbert]

And as a side note, with only lasers available as armament energy fighters are no longer able to damage warships.

[Nerhesi]

Yes, so far I see them as legal. Until they are banned...

My dogmatic objection to the High Technology chapter is about the campaign-wrecking alternative FTL drives available there.

Hah, you made me laugh outloud with "Until they are banned"

Yeah, 3I fighters can't do that which as I've said before, I'm concerned with now. High Tech chapter needs that re-balancing look after everything else is locked down for exactly the reasons you point out:

First: "USE THIS CHAPTER ONLY WITH REFEREE APPROVAL"
Second: "Can we make some of this stuff not invalidate Core options... or do we care? Example.. particle/plasma/fusion turrets"

[Nerhesi]

And as a side note, with only lasers available as armament energy fighters are no longer able to damage warships.

I think you meant sub-35 ton fighters right? Because fighters that are 35 tons and over can carry firmpoint barbettes, which means they can have 4D and 5D barbettes

[AnotherDilbert]

And without the Fusion Gun the drone is basically incapable of damaging a warship. It took some time but I got to the blindingly obvious conclusion.

So the Fusion Gun stays. The drones have to split into two groups covering Adjacent and Close. If we sabotage their initiative they will mostly move last anyway, and hence be able to chose the same distance as the fighters.