Gatling Lasers vs. Fighters

[godsgopher]

Fighters are a personal passion of mine, During 2nd Edition my fleet was never without them. Their high speed, impossibly tight turning and often effective weapons packages were a thing of beauty. Now here we are in 3rd Edition and once again Fighters have made an appearance. True we are now dealing with individuals and not whole flights but their beauty is not diminished.

None the less I have serious questions about the effectiveness of Gatling Lasers to stop these super maneuverable messengers of death. In 2ed, Anti-Fighter weapons were omni directional. But now they are by fire arc only. With the superior speed and maneuverability are these limited arc weapons going to be able to stop a small craft that can easily line up a front or Aft shot at an enemy vessel? As I have not yet been able to play the game could someone who has dealt with this give there thoughts?

 

[Clanger]

I am afraid that Gatling Lasers only work in that arc.

Though they can be used to shoot down rockets, missiles and torpedos in that arc. They cut grappling lines. They can shoot boarders coming across. They can shoot down fighters.

All as long as they are in arc.

They are a good defensive weapon but with limited coverage.

 

[godsgopher]

So I was right in assuming that there effectiveness against fighters are fairly limited so long as the player controlling the fighters isn't being reckless with them. To my way of thinking this greatly increases the need for a fleet to have its own fighter coverage at the very least. Especially given the fact that no ship, at present, smaller than a cruiser has Gatling Lasers. None the less they obviously remain a very effective deterrent vs. other threats.

 

[Greg Smith]

Shields are effective anti-fighter defences.

Fighters only carry slug guns which cannot penetrate shields. Many bombers have meson tubes, which again cannot penetrate shields.

Fighters and bombers mostly have to wait for rest of the fleet to take down shields.

You cannot send fighters and bombers off on their own to hunt down explorers, for example. They have to work alongside the rest of the fleet.

Fighters can be a very useful anti-boarding tool though.

 

[starbreaker]

I don't see it being a major problem - gatling lasers are a nice bonus, but not vital to surviving attack craft runs.

Actual fighters are very weak at anti-shipping work - their point slug guns can't penetrate shields at all, they can't score crits if they do hit the hull, and they've got a 1/3 chance of just going ping even if the do get a damage roll. The best-armed fighter only sports 3AD, and most have just 1 or 2.

Bombers (and heavy fighters) are much more of a threat, but they tend to be no faster than a middling-sized ship (and some are even slower), their weapons are all one-shot requiring a carrier to reload, and they tend to have poor dodge scores, making them worthwhile targets for a ship's main weapons, which will (over)kill them over time. They aren't all dependent on ships to drop shields for them - 60% of them sport microtorps that ignore shields. Even the ones with meson tubes still have 2AD Multihit 2 weapons, so they can blast through shields en masse if need be, although rather shoot at bare hulls when possible.

Carrier point costs are a significant factor limiting the number of fighters and bombers as well. Even with an all-bomber loadout, a light carrier will cost 150 points to bring 160 points of attack craft to the table - and you'll usually want to bring some fighters, lowering the ratio somewhat. Carriers are generally pretty poorly armed and defended (Hull 4) for their costs. The point system changes things from ACTA: B5's priority system rules, and fewer NA ships haul attack craft anyway.

 

[Greg Smith]

Even the ones with meson tubes still have 2AD Multihit 2 weapons, so they can blast through shields en masse if need be,

With only 2AD, they'd have to be quite lucky to get anything through shields.

 

[starbreaker]

Even the ones with meson tubes still have 2AD Multihit 2 weapons, so they can blast through shields en masse if need be,

With only 2AD, they'd have to be quite lucky to get anything through shields.

A lone squadron, sure, but who operates them alone? Throw 3-4 at a target and their odds of doing real damage improve to more reasonable levels. Still better off finding some friendly zapper ships to strip the shields for you first, but in an emergency you've at least got a shot.

Incidentally, if you're playing campaign games, ships have another decided advantage against fighters. They can earn XP, and bank some to use for Tactical Judgement rerolls that can force a reroll on a hit with those nasty One-Shot weapons, reducing the odds dramatically. A shame to spend them that way, but better than getting crippled or going boom.

 

[Clanger]

The way meson tubes work. As they do not burnout shields every individual fighter will get the shield rating reduction. Even against the little ships they have to be extremely lucky to do damage (Explorers, Raiders, Galliots and Frigates).

So as earlier stated they cannot blast through Shields en-masse. As non Burn Out weapons get the full reduction and do not lower shields.

 

[Greg Smith]

Throw 3-4 at a target and their odds of doing real damage improve to more reasonable levels.

I think you are missing a crucial rule:

with each fighter being one weapon system.

 

[starbreaker]

Ah, my mistake - I knew they were each a discrete weapon system on a single "virtual" ship, but I'd misread the attacks rule as resolving shields once the weapon system resolves all its hits, rather than once the hits inflicted by the whole ship (virtual or not) were tallied (which is how we played it, incorrectly). Must not do that again, although it rarely matters except for meson fighters and slug guns.

So you're right, Decados and Li Halan heavy fighters are desperately dependent on fleet support.