How do you kill fighters?

[AnotherDilbert]

How do you kill fighters?

The only effective methods I have found are more fighters, or large missile salvoes in close combat. If ships cannot kill fighters, but fighters certainly can kill ships, we have a problem.

Basic assumption: A 50 kT warship costs around GCr 50, for that I can get something like 200 70dT fighters with carriers.
So that hypothetical 50 kT warship need a sporting chance to kill 200 fighters before they kill it.

 

[Nerhesi]

Yes you would need some sort of fighter screen for highly armoured fighters. Remember, some navies (Aslan, zhodani, remote controlled k'kree) actually use small craft over big ships, so it is a valid tactic.

Fragmentation missiles are ridiculously effective against low-medium armour fighters.

The fact that fighters probably will not pack improved sensors, or a seperate sensor operator, and so on, also means lock-on should be more common.

What will be key is how to "tie up" fighters so they can be picked off. Previously you could just zoom by fighters of the enemy and effectively "close strafing run" the enemy.

With the squadron system being part of fleet combat, we will be covering how X fighters can tie up Y fighters. And if Y decides to "run the gauntlet", how X should absolutely massacare them.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes you would need some sort of fighter screen for highly armoured fighters. Remember, some navies (Aslan, zhodani, remote controlled k'kree) actually use small craft over big ships, so it is a valid tactic.

Absolutely valid strategy, but there must be a counter, lest fighters become the only viable strategy.

Fragmentation missiles are ridiculously effective against low-medium armour fighters.

But there will be no low armoured fighters. If I have to pay close to MCr 100 for a reasonable computer and software, a few MCr for max armour will be a no-brainer.

The fact that fighters probably will not pack improved sensors, or a seperate sensor operator, and so on, also means lock-on should be more common.

Agreed.

What will be key is how to "tie up" fighters so they can be picked off. Previously you could just zoom by fighters of the enemy and effectively "close strafing run" the enemy.

With the squadron system being part of fleet combat, we will be covering how X fighters can tie up Y fighters. And if Y decides to "run the gauntlet", how X should absolutely massacare them.

What will the border condition between the combat systems be? A few adventure class ships, use the basic system. XXX, use the fleet scale system?
With the current system fighters will obliterate each other well inside a 6 min round, with the bigger side taking much fewer losses.

 

[Nerhesi]

I'm not sure 100 MCr computers are going to be the most cost effective solution for your attrition craft.

You're absolutely right in that there is currently an issue for larger engagements of fighters - even 10v10. I've highlighted this for Matt in that the current system, can resolve the battle of Britain inside of 6 seconds... This is fine for a 2v2 or a 1v1 but not so for larger engagement where for many reasons (balance, cinematic, etc) - we need a limit on exactly who is engaging who in that dogfight at the per-round level.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I'm not sure 100 MCr computers are going to be the most cost effective solution for your attrition craft.

Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit, but Computer and Software will probably be the single biggest cost for fighters.

You're absolutely right in that there is currently an issue for larger engagements of fighters - even 10v10. I've highlighted this for Matt in that the current system, can resolve the battle of Britain inside of 6 seconds... This is fine for a 2v2 or a 1v1 but not so for larger engagement where for many reasons (balance, cinematic, etc) - we need a limit on exactly who is engaging who in that dogfight at the per-round level.

Yes, that is difficult. Instakill is not fun, long slow drawn out battles are not fun either.

 

[Chas]

Keep in mind nuclear missiles are going to be valid vs. light fighters at least, and they'll be pretty much one shot out of combat if not completely destroyed, particularly at lower TLs.

My own builds with computerized drone ships and no crew certainly have the computer and software as the top expense. But that was specifically for a torpedo bomber, something to whizz into torpedo range, fire, and then get out of dodge as the missiles start to arrive with the high thrust burner. (The range issue with regards distant needs firming up...)

As you have said fighters are a valid tactic, but they are:
1) expensive in many ways depending on how you make them. If you want fire control, or launch control on each fighter it's a HUGE expense vs. running these one time on a capital ship.
2) very attritional. Your costs aren't like a bigger ship that can absorb damage and then go get repairs on its hull. A fighter is gone. Its pilot is gone.

 

[wbnc]

How do you kill fighters?

The only effective methods I have found are more fighters, or large missile salvoes in close combat. If ships cannot kill fighters, but fighters certainly can kill ships, we have a problem.

Basic assumption: A 50 kT warship costs around GCr 50, for that I can get something like 200 70dT fighters with carriers.
So that hypothetical 50 kT warship need a sporting chance to kill 200 fighters before they kill it.

That's, well at least historically a questionable idea. Fighters/strike fighters are notoriously effective against capital ships.

the Yamato was sunk by a group of fighters that didn't mass anywhere near one of it's main turrets. Historically the only way to counter fighters..were fighters. Preferably Lots of fighters, with really good pilots.

A problem is going to occur when players design fighters with maximum armor, and evasion software etc....fully tricked out fighters that are built for absolute best bang for the buck are of course going to be a pain in the neck. Unfortunately there is no known way you cant engineer rules to counter min-max Baron Von Munchkin wonder weapons... Applying a bit of restraint when designing fighter craft would be the best means to insure they don't become too overbalanced...but that's a Player/Ref/designer issue.

Now you can try to make reasonable efforts to plug the obvious holes in a system. But in this case, 50ktons of fighters should make people wet themselves...unless they have 50ktons of fighters to deal with the issue.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ton for ton comparisons are irrelevant, cost for cost comparisons are highly relevant (in my mind...) Note that I pitted 14 kT of fighter against 50 kT ship, because they cost the same including carriers.

Rules can always be munchkinised, but there is no reason to let one particular weapon system, or strategy, be invincible. Every weapon system should have a counter.

 

[wbnc]

Ton for ton comparisons are irrelevant, cost for cost comparisons are highly relevant (in my mind...) Note that I pitted 14 kT of fighter against 50 kT ship, because they cost the same including carriers.

Rules can always be munchkinised, but there is no reason to let one particular weapon system, or strategy, be invincible. Every weapon system should have a counter.

I agree and historically the best counter for fighters..is more fighters.

not everything has to be dollar for dollar, ton for ton balanced off against one another.the sole saving grace of a strike fighter, or fighter is that it is horrendously over powered for it's size and investment. they fold when hit, require a lot of support structure, and carriers are notoriously vulnerable to attack. If it's just comparing straight up combat numbers they will always look lopsided.

but that is ignoring the weakness of a fighter which is totally non combat related. their weakness and balancing factor is that you are spending a lot of resources and manpower on a single ship that can go away if hit. Assuming the guy designing the fighter hasn't gone overboard and turned what is supposed to be a glass cannon into a flying tank. Yes there is the odd model like the Sturmovik and the A-10 which can take a hit and laugh..but most are fairly light, and sacrifice armor for speed and agility.

In this case I think it's a matter of reigning in individual designs rather than monkeying with the mechanics..now if you wanted to say make armor on fighters and small craft a bit more expensive, or require a higher tech level...that would be where I would focus the effort....or simply make sure to include some strong wording on how a fighter should NOT be built....

 

[Chas]

Another way to deal with fighters I figured was the ion cannon, but we're really still need the effects of this clarified.

An Ion barbette can do enough power point drain to completely drain a fighter of all power. That's basic systems, maneuverability, everything. What happens when you're anti grav goes off at 25 thrust? Not pleasant. There should be also sorts of issues here, unable to dodge or evade... auto hits by missiles that round for instance.

(pdf has a mistake in the table, this should be 2Dx10)

 

[wbnc]

Another way to deal with fighters I figured was the ion cannon, but we're really still need the effects of this clarified.

An Ion barbette can do enough power point drain to completely drain a fighter of all power. That's basic systems, maneuverability, everything. What happens when you're anti grav goes off at 25 thrust? Not pleasant. There should be also sorts of issues here, unable to dodge or evade... auto hits by missiles that round for instance.

(pdf has a mistake in the table, this should be 2Dx10)

Oh yeah an Ion Cannon would definitely mess up a fighter in one solid hit. Also single EMP torpedo could, in theory, take down a squadron if it's in formation.... so load lots of EMP/nuke torps, and frag missiles. zfiring a salvo of them off is going to rapidly wear down a fighters almost non existent point defense.

Fortunately when your power systems shut down so does your acceleration...which means Gees drop away just as fast as your thrust does. Gees are caused by change in acceleration not constant velocity.

You still have ot be worried though because now you are moving at interplanetary speeds with no means of control. Next stop deep space, or the hard unyielding surface of the ship you were just trying to strafe. Even if you aren't shot down, and avoid a crash, it would take a round or two to regain control, and rejoin the fight. That's assuming you don't have to chase down the ship which has been burning full thrust away from you.

no matter what you will not be able to keep up with your formation, and are now a single fighter in very unfriendly skies...with no squadron mates to protect you.

 

[Nerhesi]

Completely forgot about those other options wbnc emp torp starts driving up the cost of immune fighters...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Torpedoes are currently not very attractive. If you have enough PD to survive against missiles, you are immune to torpedoes.

But Ion cannon might work, at least against fighters, zap them to kill their power and then kill them with fusion turrets while their defences are down. Reaction Drives are not dependant on power.
Given the initiative rules I do not see it working all that well with say spinals. You'd have to use the secondary armament of many ships to zap a single enemy ship, but you cannot fire all your spinals after all you secondary armaments.

 

[wbnc]

Torpedoes are currently not very attractive. If you have enough PD to survive against missiles, you are immune to torpedoes.

But Ion cannon might work, at least against fighters, zap them to kill their power and then kill them with fusion turrets while their defences are down. Reaction Drives are not dependant on power.
Given the initiative rules I do not see it working all that well with say spinals. You'd have to use the secondary armament of many ships to zap a single enemy ship, but you cannot fire all your spinals after all you secondary armaments.

That EMP torpedo may be a viable option against fighters...
Fighters have one Gun, at best, for self defense, It has to save that second weapon slot for a heavy weapon to damage big ships. If its primary weapon is a particle beam, missile, or other weapon...it may have nothing but EW to deal with missiles. Also they no automated point defense systems, and the pilot may be the only crewman aboard...so he is having to do several things at once. this makes missiles/torps a bigger threat than against capital ships.
And torpedoes you may have to "kill" twice.

 

[Chas]

Torpedoes are currently not very attractive.

This remains a critical problem and should be addressed urgently and with priority. We shouldn't let this slip. Is this as simple as saying PD is only 25% as effective vs. torps to reflect the relative bay firing rates?

But Ion cannon might work, at least against fighters, zap them to kill their power and then kill them with fusion turrets while their defences are down. Reaction Drives are not dependant on power.

Aren't they? There's no pumps, ignition or catalyst feeder in the process? Unlikely. Or maybe they don't and whether you like it or not you keep blasting at maximum thrust in the direction you last headed in. This is the kind of question that I was alluding to when I brought the subject up in the Locking High Guard thread. For what will be a key option and part of the game, we need these answers defined, not left floating in the ether.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Reaction Drives are not dependant on power.

Aren't they? There's no pumps, ignition or catalyst feeder in the process? Unlikely. Or maybe they don't and whether you like it or not you keep blasting at maximum thrust in the direction you last headed in. This is the kind of question that I was alluding to when I brought the subject up in the Locking High Guard thread. For what will be a key option and part of the game, we need these answers defined, not left floating in the ether.

HG, p11-12 gives no power requirement for reaction drives, so the rockets need no external power.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That EMP torpedo may be a viable option against fighters...
Fighters have one Gun, at best, for self defense, It has to save that second weapon slot for a heavy weapon to damage big ships. If its primary weapon is a particle beam, missile, or other weapon...it may have nothing but EW to deal with missiles. Also they no automated point defense systems, and the pilot may be the only crewman aboard...so he is having to do several things at once. this makes missiles/torps a bigger threat than against capital ships.
And torpedoes you may have to "kill" twice.

I think we build very different "fighters". I have slowly standardised on 70 dT, three single turrets in modular mounts. The modular turrets can be switched from fusion to laser, so you can load the craft for the mission. I might have basic ECM and Signal Processing for EW. So I have a crew of 5 or 6: Pilot, Sensor Operator, 3 Gunners, and possibly an Engineer for repairs.
So if I intend to fight someone who likes missiles I might have one fusion and 2 lasers. If I intend to fight other fighters I might have three fusion guns.

 

[Chas]

I've also gone for a different kind of fighter build. I'll be on the road tomorrow but will try to get this up in a dedicated thread for everybody's consideration.

 

[Chas]

Reaction Drives are not dependant on power.

Aren't they? There's no pumps, ignition or catalyst feeder in the process? Unlikely. Or maybe they don't and whether you like it or not you keep blasting at maximum thrust in the direction you last headed in. This is the kind of question that I was alluding to when I brought the subject up in the Locking High Guard thread. For what will be a key option and part of the game, we need these answers defined, not left floating in the ether.

HG, p11-12 gives no power requirement for reaction drives, so the rockets need no external power.

A good call. Okay, so you keep cruising along at whatever you were doing with the reaction drive anyways.

 

[Nerhesi]

So if I intend to fight someone who likes missiles I might have one fusion and 2 lasers. If I intend to fight other fighters I might have three fusion guns.

I believe this specific combo is only valid because "high-tech" weapons haven't been balanced yet? If fusion/particle/plasma turrets only require single turrets then that really invalidates some basic turret an barbettes. Which could be fine as its not 3I legal anyways.

I think we cover this in another thread though - triple particle and fusion turrets being "too good" if they're allowed on single rather than triple turrets or double