Carrier

[IanDate]

It's the wrong comparison, really. The key is in the phrases 'air' and 'sea' power. Ships and fighters in space are moving through the same medium. They have none of the advantages the whole air/water asymmetry gives real fighters, to say nothing of cool stuff like being able to hide behind the horizon. We're looking at the equivalent of, at best (Skyserpent), PT boat equivalents, at worst (Kotha), man-in-dinghy-with-rocket-launcher.

Yes but the fighters have 2 advantages.

1) Their speed. They are far faster than most of the ships in the game.

2) They are small, they can get a lot closer to ships than other ships can, this means that they can pick out individual targets on a ships hull with pinpoint accuracy.

A way of simulating this I think would be give fighters precise, but they roll on a different set of critical tables. They would only be able to strike at say the engines and weapons, they wouldn't be able ot get at the more heavily protected crew, vital systems and reactors, their weapons aren't heavy enough.

I think I would leave the engine damage table as is, but the weapon damage table may need a little work.

Ian

 

[Silvereye]

2) They are small, they can get a lot closer to ships than other ships can, this means that they can pick out individual targets on a ships hull with pinpoint accuracy.

A way of simulating this I think would be give fighters precise, but they roll on a different set of critical tables. They would only be able to strike at say the engines and weapons, they wouldn't be able ot get at the more heavily protected crew, vital systems and reactors, their weapons aren't heavy enough.

The problem is Precise does not make the target any easier to hit. It simply means you are more likely to inflict critical damage on the target, and never inflict a bulkhead hit (you also get the '7' roll on the ancients and space-stations critical hits table). Now while shooting a Shadow Ship in the eqivalent of the nads is well represented by Precise, by passing all of a G'quan's bulkheads with the same trait is a lot more unrealistic.

I would give fighters an improved chance to hit a capital ship by adding +1 to their to-hit rolls (the eqivalent of an AP weapon system. So Weak becomes 'normal', 'normal' becomes AP, and AP becomes Super-AP - but only against Capital Ships). This means that your fighters will hit their target more often, but not always get through the bulkheads.

Which would you rather have for your squadron of Frazi's making an attack run on a Primus, Precise (meaning you still hit on 6's), or AP (meaning you would be hitting on 5's)? I would take the 5's, you have more chance of the fire overloading interceptors, and on average make a lot more rolls on the damage table, so critical hits would probably be about even in number. Might run this through Obsidian's number cruncher later.

 

[IanDate]

The problem is Precise does not make the target any easier to hit. It simply means you are more likely to inflict critical damage on the target, and never inflict a bulkhead hit (you also get the '7' roll on the ancients and space-stations critical hits table). Now while shooting a Shadow Ship in the eqivalent of the nads is well represented by Precise, by passing all of a G'quan's bulkheads with the same trait is a lot more unrealistic.

I would give fighters an improved chance to hit a capital ship by adding +1 to their to-hit rolls (the eqivalent of an AP weapon system. So Weak becomes 'normal', 'normal' becomes AP, and AP becomes Super-AP - but only against Capital Ships). This means that your fighters will hit their target more often, but not always get through the bulkheads.

Which would you rather have for your squadron of Frazi's making an attack run on a Primus, Precise (meaning you still hit on 6's), or AP (meaning you would be hitting on 5's)? I would take the 5's, you have more chance of the fire overloading interceptors, and on average make a lot more rolls on the damage table, so critical hits would probably be about even in number. Might run this through Obsidian's number cruncher later.[/quote]

Yes, but the way I look at the to hit roll is a combination of accuracy and the ability to get past all the armour plating on the ship.

The precise trait shows the fighters picking off weapon mounts and vulnerable engine couplings and the like. Because they can see these things with the old mk 1 eyeball they are that close, they are more likely to hit them and do critical damage.

But as I said, the critical tables that fighters use need to be somewhat different than those used by capital ships.

The weapons on a fighter are unlikely to get through to a power core or ammo stack, they are more likely to do dmage to individual mounts.

As a possible example off the top of my head.

Weapon crit table
1- -1AD from one random weapon system on the side the fighter attacks from.
2- -1AD from all weapon systems on the side the fighter attacks from.
3- -3 AD from one random weapon system on the side the fighter attacks from.
4- -3AD from all weapon systems on the side the fighter attacks from.
5- one random weapon system on the side the fighter attacks from may not fire.
6 - All weapon systems on the side the fighter attacks from cannot fire.

So the critical damage is not as serious as the crits you would get off the main tables.

Ian

 

[Slightly Norse John]

They simply aren't that fast. Never mind ultra- shiny kit like the F22, even the superannuated B52H in the maritime patrol role (loaded with more Harpoon missiles than I really care to think about being shot at by) is fifteen or sixteen times as fast as a fleet carrier thrashing it at flank speed.
Fighters are small. That's why they're almost useless.
They exist as a weapon type, sure, but that's just a name; there aren't any missiles in ACtA/SFoS. Nothing behaves like a single- shot high lethality ordnance weapon. Missiles and bombs are why real world fighters are dangerous. B5 starfighters carry small repeating fire weapons, that behave more like solid shot than shell even.
Thinking about it, fighters, even PT boats, is the wrong simile. They're Space Infantry. Cheap, expendable, numerous, capable of achieving virtually nothing on their own, but essential to screen and escort the heavy units the battle actually turns on. The starfuries a Nova, say, carries are just the 23rd Century version of tankivoy desantniki.

 

[Epaminondas]

I agree- fighters in B5 are more like aircraft in the 1920s, rather then WWII aircraft.

They might be able to kill a capital ship that is not moving or firing back, but their true role is being the eyes and ears of fleet. [the demonstration by the proto US Air Force sinking some capital warships wasn't convincing due to the altitude and nonmoving of the ships... a real attack would have been slaughtered by the AA guns].

Great raiders or convoy protectors, but not for the main battle line.

---

Look at the show- every big battle the fighters are in, they get creamed. But when they are merely scouting, protecting merchants etc, they are pretty good.

They can stand up to a raider ship [ destroyer or crusier at worst]... but just don't belong slugging it out with a captial class ship in a fleet action.

This isn't star wars.

 

[IanDate]

This is one of the reasons why my example critical table has no extra damage. They are taking shots at obvious systems. And they still have to run the gauntlet of anti fighter weapons. Admittedly, with the +2/5+ dodge save I sugested earlier they wouldn't be taking as big a casualties as they would with the current system, but they are still taking casualties.

If the are teh ears/eyes of a fleet then they should be able to do something like scouts can, and I don't mean just reducing stealth. I say this as we already know the location of all enemy ships, so fighters have to have a role.

AT the moment fighters have NO role. They get butchered by antifighter weapons so they can't take out ships. Admitedly they can reduce stealth, but thats only really useful against 1 fleet.

At the moment all they can really do is deal with opposing fighters, but if your opponent doesn't bother with fighters because they can't do anything else, all they can do is be hurled at ships they can't hurt, at least not without taking horrendous losses.

Ian

 

[Chernobyl]

Fighters are also effective against drazi and vorlons - any "single arc fleet"

Chern

 

[firekite]

it is all a matter of tactics. eventually what could evolve from your fleet is the space control ship (scs) concept (Battleship/Carrier)which would be a ship with battleship firepower, a carrier airwing ,and point defence weaponry of an escort vessel.drawback are a huge and expensive ship (think imperial star destroyer or colonial battlestar) :twisted:

 

[Slightly Norse John]

HIJMS Ise and Hyuga, I think, six twin 14" turrets, AB, PQ, XY; removed the X and Y turrets to fit a flying platform for 22 fighters. Under the circumstances, it didn't work, but but with fortune on their side- not, for instance, being under massive attack by the Third and Seventh Fleets of the USN- the idea really deserved more in the way of success than it ever got. Whether they actually had the strengths or the weaknesses of both- they didn't last long enough to see, really.
For that matter,what'd you call the Nova and the Omega, with their fighter complements? Or the Sharlin, with it's Nials? I'd call the Omega and Sharlin pretty well protected, too.
One thing that doesn't quite make sense to me about the Omega/Nova hullform, is the huge gaping hole in the middle that the fighters come out of. I know, hollow tubes, arches, stronger than they look, etc. Right. There's a big hole in the middle of the ship. Carriers simply need more space internally, to repair, store and ready fighters, that battlewagons can do without. (Not necessarily do; incompetent or outdated design is always a possibility.) Carriers should be more fragile, and by and large- Hull ratings- are.

 

[MustEatBrains]

Hey, fighters can still cause critical hits on capital ships - while they won´t do any real damage, that is something that should not be forgotten! Your opponent might laugh at your fighter flights, but as soon as they reduce his flagship to Zero speed, he won´t be laughung much any more, will he?

Granted, the chances for scoring criticals with the low number of AD on most fighters is slim, it is still there - all the more reason to use lts and lots of them.

In that context, giving fighters precise would definitely improve them! I don´t even see the need for an extra critical table... (maybe they could get a -1 on the table, but I woulnd´t go much further than that)

 

[TrueCentauri]

Ok, this tread is moving in the same line as the other fighter treads - the old idea's come back to the table. Before jumping to repair-mode, let's make some conclusions:

1) Most votes were for option three, fighting with carriers agains the big guns ships should be possible with ACTA, on equal footing as fighting with the big guns. Fighters should have more than just supporting duties.

2) The number 2 and 4 are allmost equal, giving more or les dominance to fighters.

3) Nobody wants fighters and carriers to be abolished.

Although most people take option 3, people are very divided on how to achieve this. This is also the most difficult option to achieve.

This said, it was not the intention that normal vessels with a small number of flights (Sharlin, Nova, etc, ships that are 'big guns' and get some fighters for free) should suddenly be able to use the firepower of their flights to seriously kill ships. I still see them as limited offense and more defensive flighters, which could go nasty on you if you ignore them.

Just like old battleships had planes for scouting and gunnery directing. (And that is very close to the role fighters have now)

For carriers it should be different, they were designed to kill ships, just as we all seem to agree on. I don't see them doing this with their limited fighter ability that they have now, without significantly boosting the flights that are on common ships as well. We could have (again) a poll for the solution, of which two I want to post haven't been mentioned before:

1) Carriers should have far more fighters than they have now, and fighters should be less vulnerable, but not more effective in dealing out damage. In the end, also in WWII (the only war that showed real carrier to carrier combat) it is allways that you need to overwhelm your opponents defenses to ensure victory. That's why the Ise and Hyuga were complete failures. Half a battleship and hopeless as a carrier.

Or

2) We should have a bomber class type of fighter, exclusively mounted on carriers and not for sale as a patrol PL level choice. bombers are very inferior in dogfighting, but as good as fighters in dodging AF, and excellent in killing ships (if not, fighters could shield them , detailed solutions can allways be found in case). The thunderbolt could be re-rated as a bomber. In fact, we only see them in this role in the show.

Other options, increasing fighter strength, giving precise to fighters, giving twin-linked to fighters, reducing the strength of the AF-trait, it can all be considered as well. But if alone, the carrier will also be stronger, but not a specialty ship, and suddenly a sharlin gets offensive fighter capability, giving is more to moan when playing EA against minbari .

I do have the great concern that some fleets will be very vulnerable to these types of tweaks (isa?), and if we also need to tweak ships, we are in for a SFOS+, because of creating more unbalance than we solve.

For those wanting to make fighters stronger, remember the 120 (?) thunderbolt flights that could be chosen to kill the enemy fleet. (At least I read about it when SFOS was released) I guess we don't want to go back to those days.

So what are your thoughts?

 

[Rodders]

As it stands, each of those deploys about double the number of fighters of each of the UK's current naval carriers.

Currently, or in the very near future, the British Royal Navy will have no carrier fighters, all Harriers are being moved to land bases.

Silly isn't it?

LBH

apart from the 2 super carriers what had their keils laid down 2 years ago

 

[lastbesthope]

apart from the 2 super carriers what had their keils laid down 2 years ago

See, far as I know, that hasn't happened yet, there are plans for 2 future carriers, but they can't decide what the heck they want on them that would be reasonably affordable.

I'd better hush now, my work has something stronger than an NDA, the OSA!

LBH