Something Lighter..

[Nerhesi]

40-ton fighter, 9G M-drive, 10 turns of 16G R-Drive, Improved Sensors (+1), Accurate Particle Barbette. Computer 35 (So either +5 to hit, -1 evade, or -3 evade, +2 to hit). 18 hull. 90ish MCR.
vs
50-ton fighter, 9G M-drive, 10 turns of 16G R-Drive, Advanced Sensors (+2), Accurate Particle Barbette. Computer 35 (So either +5 to hit, -1 evade, or -3 evade, +2 to hit). 22hull. 105ish MCR.
vs
40-ton fighter, 9G M-drive, 10 turns of 15G R-Drive, Military Sensors (+0), Accurate Particle Barbette. Computer 25 (So either +5 to hit or -3 evade). 18 hull. 75ish MCR.


Economical? Effective? Go for the one with all the frills?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Depends on what you want to kill?

In a fighter vs fighter dogfight the dogfighting roll is the deciding factor. The 50 dT fighter is at a -1 disadvantage in the dogfighting table, not good. The other modifier is numbers, it is better to have more cheaper fighters.

A 35 dT fighter with a m/15 computer and a Tachyon barbette for about MCr 35 will easily kill all of your examples in an equal cost dogfight. Adding carriers will even it out somewhat.

I haven't walked through a medium fighter vs medium fighter in the Fleet system, so I have no idea of the outcome there.


P.S. I can't replicate your designs. I can't fit that much reaction fuel and my attempts are rather cheaper. D.S.

 

[Nerhesi]

Depends on what you want to kill?

In a fighter vs fighter dogfight the dogfighting roll is the deciding factor. The 50 dT fighter is at a -1 disadvantage in the dogfighting table, not good. The other modifier is numbers, it is better to have more cheaper fighters.

A 35 dT fighter with a m/15 computer and a Tachyon barbette for about MCr 35 will easily kill all of your examples in an equal cost dogfight. Adding carriers will even it out somewhat.

I haven't walked through a medium fighter vs medium fighter in the Fleet system, so I have no idea of the outcome there.


P.S. I can't replicate your designs. I can't fit that much reaction fuel and my attempts are rather cheaper. D.S.

I somehow (despite all the focus we've given it), completely discounted the dog-fight roll. My fault

Hmm so Tachyon Barbette is an interesting concept. Granted you won't really be able to make it accurate, but it is much cheaper and has higher average damage (17 vs 14... or perhaps 15 if you count the accurate there).

The Dogfight roll is key, giving that -2/+2 swing - but I wonder, what about the sensor roll... the 50-ton fighter would have a whole +1 to the roll over the other fighter, granted both are stealthy so ultimately lock-ons may not be happening anyways (-4 to each of their target #s).

A 35 dt fighter with a Tachyon - hrm.. isn't that always losing the dog-fight and always facing an evade penalty. Link me to that example fighter?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

TL 15         Hull 17                                      34,9        
                           Desired  ∆TL  Rat  #    dTon    Cost    Power
Hull                                             35,500             7,10        
Config    Close Structure       4         4               2,840            
Hull strength    Reinforced     3         3                        
Armour    Bonded Superdense    15        15       4,260   3,408            
Rad Shielding                   1         1               0,888            
                                        
ManœuvreD    Very Advanced      9    2    9   1   2,556   6,390    31,95   
PowerP TL12  High Technology         3        1   1,867   2,800    40,00    
                                        
Drop Tank Collar    3,98 dT     4         4   4   0,064   0,032            
Fuel, Power                     4        21   1   1,000                

ReactionD    Very Advanced     16    2   16   1  11,360   2,840       
Reaction Fuel    9 turns        0         0       8,394                
                                        
Cockpit                         1             1   1,500   0,010            
    Holographic                 1             1           0,003            
Comp           m/15             3        15   1           2,000            
Backup Comp    m/10 fib         2        10   1           0,240            
                                        
Sensors    Basic                1                    
                                        
Barbette                                        
Tachyon    Advanced             1    1 TL15   1   4,500   5,500     4,50  

Evade/2             15          2         2   1           2
Fire Control/3      15          3         3   1           6

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The Dogfight roll is key, giving that -2/+2 swing - but I wonder, what about the sensor roll... the 50-ton fighter would have a whole +1 to the roll over the other fighter, granted both are stealthy so ultimately lock-ons may not be happening anyways (-4 to each of their target #s).

A 35 dt fighter with a Tachyon - hrm.. isn't that always losing the dog-fight and always facing an evade penalty. Link me to that example fighter?

The cheap fighter will be at a disadvantage for software, but there will be many of them, so they will mostly win the dogfight roll.

Yes, the expensive fighters will nearly always have lock-on, but the cheaper fighters will hit anyway. With better software and lock-on the expensive fighters will have as good to hit even if they lose the dogfight. But there are many cheap fighters, each doing as much damage and having as many Hull points as the single expensive fighter. Cheap fighters win.

 

[phavoc]

You also need to consider where the fighters are going to be based. A carrier has a finite amount of space and cannot easily replenish it's supply. A planet/station based fighter pretty much has no storage-space limitations, so more is better.

Also the numbers vs. tech argument is a perennial one. If you don't value the lives of your pilots, you maximize your throw-weight with numbers. But if you do value your pilots, you want to give them as many benefits as you can in their craft. So you would trade some offensive capabilities for more defensive (maybe less reaction fuel and more hull armor?).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You also need to consider where the fighters are going to be based. A carrier has a finite amount of space and cannot easily replenish it's supply. A planet/station based fighter pretty much has no storage-space limitations, so more is better.

The carrier costs something like MCr 1 / dT fighter, so about MCr 35 - 40 for these fighters. MCr 35 + 35 = 70 is still much cheaper than MCr 90 + 40 = 130, almost a two to one advantage for the cheaper fighter.

Also the numbers vs. tech argument is a perennial one. If you don't value the lives of your pilots, you maximize your throw-weight with numbers. But if you do value your pilots, you want to give them as many benefits as you can in their craft. So you would trade some offensive capabilities for more defensive (maybe less reaction fuel and more hull armor?).

You are assuming you have much greater resources than the enemy. That might be true of the US in colonial wars or the Imperium against the Sword Worlds, but it is problematic for two equal powers. In an Island Cluster campaign, or something like that, you can't afford that luxury.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Fleet combat:

Cheap barbette fighter:
Attack: +2[crew] +3[fire control] +2[TL] = +7
Defence: +2[crew] +2[evade] +2[TL] = +6

Expensive barbette fighter:
Attack: +2[crew] +1[accurate] +5[fire control] +2[TL] = +10
Defence: +2[crew] +3[evade] +2[TL] = +7

(You get the bonus for having the software, not running it. I may not like it, but it's the rule.)

If we include carriers we can get about 2 cheap fighters for each expensive.

Squadron 20 cheap fighters:
Hull: 17 * 20 / 10 = 34
Damage: Tachyon 20 * 20 / 10 = 40

Squadron 10 expensive fighters:
Hull: 18 * 10 / 10 = 18
Damage: Particle 15 * 10 / 10 = 15


Cheap fighters attack:
2D +7 -7 ≈ 2D ±0, average damage 49.6%.
Damage 40 * 49,6% * 55%[armour] = 10,9 damage, killing 60% of enemy force.

Expensive fighters attack:
2D +10 -6 ≈ 2D +4, average damage 88,5%.
Damage 15 * 88,5% * 55%[armour] = 7,3 damage, killing 21,5% of enemy force.

Cheap fighters win.

 

[AndrewW]

You also need to consider where the fighters are going to be based. A carrier has a finite amount of space and cannot easily replenish it's supply. A planet/station based fighter pretty much has no storage-space limitations, so more is better.

Yup, though a same size carrier will be able to store more 35 ton fighters then 40 or 50 ton fighters.

 

[phavoc]

You also need to consider where the fighters are going to be based. A carrier has a finite amount of space and cannot easily replenish it's supply. A planet/station based fighter pretty much has no storage-space limitations, so more is better.

The carrier costs something like MCr 1 / dT fighter, so about MCr 35 - 40 for these fighters. MCr 35 + 35 = 70 is still much cheaper than MCr 90 + 40 = 130, almost a two to one advantage for the cheaper fighter.

Cost doesn't matter when you can ONLY carry a set number of fighters. Hangar capacity is finite, the price of a fighter isn't. What price are you willing to pay for victory? Or can afford. That's what it comes down to.

Look at carriers today. Even the US is struggling with it's planned carrier fleet + air wing. But we aren't doing as bad as some countries, that have carriers but NO air wing, or a very limited one. In their cases cheap is what you are looking for, because they cannot afford anything else. One could also argue if you cannot afford to properly equip your carrier, you probably don't need one in the first place.

Also the numbers vs. tech argument is a perennial one. If you don't value the lives of your pilots, you maximize your throw-weight with numbers. But if you do value your pilots, you want to give them as many benefits as you can in their craft. So you would trade some offensive capabilities for more defensive (maybe less reaction fuel and more hull armor?).

You are assuming you have much greater resources than the enemy. That might be true of the US in colonial wars or the Imperium against the Sword Worlds, but it is problematic for two equal powers. In an Island Cluster campaign, or something like that, you can't afford that luxury.

I didn't assume anything. I would definitely argue that valuing the lives of your military isn't a luxury. It's a societal view, and one could argue that protecting your investment is a smart thing to do. If society views its protectors as disposable, then they will get minimal protections. Too little protection and you will find it hard to put people in those seats. And keep in mind these aren't conscripts. Any fighter pilot is going to be an investment. Desperation may force you to deploy them early with minimal training, but that just means you are sending them to their death that much faster. You need not look any farther than our own history to draw these conclusions. Whether it's the 20th century or 52nd, the same maxims hold true.

 

[Nerhesi]

You've used Drop-tanks for non-Jump drive fuel. While not explicitly stated that drop-tanks are for Jump fuel, almost every paragraph does reference the drop tanks in relationship to drop tank fuel. Regardless, lets assume you can do so anyways.

a) The first instant your fighters take damage, is the instant they run out of fuel as the drop tanks are destroyed. Or did I read your breakdown incorrectly Anotherdilbert?
b) Your fighters are going to lose any atmospheric engagements badly due to their un-streamlined nature (drop tanks). (-4 to dogfights due to piloting roll penalty)
c) You either have a +3 to hit from firecontrol, or a -2 due to evade. The expensive-ish fighters can actually run a further -3 in the dogfight, while enjoying the +1 accurate from accurate.

Obviously none of the above applies to fleet combat.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

No drop tanks, 9 turns of fuel internal.
The drop tank collars are there in case I would want to carry drop tanks for extended range. They would be dropped before combat.


The drop tanks carry fuel are described in the Fuel section on p38, not specified what sort of fuel. An intrinsic characteristic of drop tanks is that they can easily be jettisoned when not needed. Very specifically you can use the fuel in the tanks when you jump, which would not be possible without being specifically allowed by the rules, hence most of the special rules about drop tanks are about how you use them to jump.

I would certainly allow drop tanks to carry any kind of fuel. We have seen them used to carry petrochemical fuel as well as LH2 and LOX in real life.


More problematical is that p14 describes fuel need, without specifying any types of fuel. Core p147 defines fuel for fusion plants and jump to be hydrogen. Default assumption becomes that fuel is hydrogen, probably carried as LH2.

Without any other information, I would have to assume that Reaction drives are some sort of fusion rocket using hydrogen as fuel and reaction mass. I think the fuel requirements are way to small for any chemical rocket.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Cost doesn't matter when you can ONLY carry a set number of fighters. Hangar capacity is finite, the price of a fighter isn't. What price are you willing to pay for victory? Or can afford. That's what it comes down to.

Hangar capacity is just as limited as the number of fighters, by cost.

I didn't assume anything. I would definitely argue that valuing the lives of your military isn't a luxury. It's a societal view, and one could argue that protecting your investment is a smart thing to do. If society views its protectors as disposable, then they will get minimal protections. Too little protection and you will find it hard to put people in those seats. And keep in mind these aren't conscripts. Any fighter pilot is going to be an investment. Desperation may force you to deploy them early with minimal training, but that just means you are sending them to their death that much faster. You need not look any farther than our own history to draw these conclusions. Whether it's the 20th century or 52nd, the same maxims hold true.

And again I would call that a luxury. In an Island Cluster campaign you only need to lose a single battle to have your homeworld occupied, game over. Poland in 1939 had the same experience. Keeping your soldiers alive is important, winning the war is more important.


Imagine that you have 1000 expensive fighters as in the OP and that the enemy invades your home system with 2000 cheap fighters. Using the Fleet combat example above we see that you kill about 20% of the enemy force in the first round or about 430 enemy fighters. The enemy kills about 60% of your force or about 600 of your fighters. The next round the odds are overwhelming and your remaining fighters die with minimal losses for the enemy. In total you lost 1000 fighters and the enemy lost 500. Most of the crews survived according to the rules, and are presumably rescued by the winner. The cheaper fighters win the battle with less losses, in either personnel or money.


For expensive fighters with better defences to work, they must be nearly impossible to hit, so that they can survive against superior numbers of cheaper fighters. I don't think we can build such a fighter with the current system. With added armour, rather than multiplied armour, the cheaper fighters would mostly fall off the damage table and the expensive fighters might work. Note that the expensive fighters mostly have better offence (to hit), all the medium fighters have basically the same defences.


With the Fighter Squadron or Fleet system medium fighters (~35-50 dT) are likely to lose against very cheap light fighters (~10 dT) or ultra cheap drones (~3 dT) with weapons that cannot normally penetrate heavy armour.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

c) You either have a +3 to hit from firecontrol, or a -2 due to evade. The expensive-ish fighters can actually run a further -3 in the dogfight, while enjoying the +1 accurate from accurate.

Let's see, basic system, single dogfight:

Assume 2 cheap fighters for each expensive fighter (carrier included), so fight 10 expensive vs 20 cheap. Cheap wins dogfight.
Expensive runs Evade/2 and FireControl/4. Hull 18.
Cheap runs FireControl/3. Hull 17.

Expensive:
To hit: +5[crew] +4[software] +1[accurate] +1[aid] -2[dogfight] -0[evade] -3[dodge] = +6, auto-hit, average Effect 5, crit on 8+
Damage: 4D +5[effect] -15[armour] ≈ 4,37 damage.
10 fighters do average 10 * 4,37 ≈ 44 damage killing 44 / ( 17 * 20 ) ≈ 12,9% of enemy force.

Cheap:
To hit: +5[crew] +3[software] +1[aid] +2[dogfight] -2[evade] -3[dodge] = +6, auto-hit, average Effect 5, crit on 8+
Damage: 2D +5[effect] -5[armour] ≈ 7,02 damage.
20 fighters do average 20 * 7,02 ≈ 140 damage, killing 140 / ( 18 * 10 ) ≈ 77,8% of enemy force.
Added crits for sustained damage kill most enemy fighters, near 100% kill in a single round.


Cheap fighters slaughter expensive fighters.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Or if we assume 10 different dogfights of 1 expensive vs 2 cheap fighters:

The expensive fighters have -1 on the dogfight roll, because of an additional enemy.
The expensive wins 34% of the dogfights.
The dogfight is tied in 10% of the cases.
The cheap fighters wins 56% of the dogfights.


Cheap Wins 56%:
Expensive:
To hit: +5[crew] +4[software] +1[accurate] +1[aid] -2[dogfight] -0[evade] -3[dodge] = +6, auto-hit, average Effect 5, crit on 8+
Damage: 4D +5[effect] -15[armour] ≈ 4,37 damage.
10 fighters do average 10 * 4,37 ≈ 44 damage killing 44 / ( 17 * 20 ) ≈ 12,9% of enemy force.

Cheap:
To hit: +5[crew] +3[software] +1[aid] +2[dogfight] -2[evade] -3[dodge] = +6, auto-hit, average Effect 5, crit on 8+
Damage: 2D +5[effect] -5[armour] ≈ 7,02 damage.
20 fighters do average 20 * 7,02 ≈ 140 damage, killing 140 / ( 18 * 10 ) ≈ 77,8% of enemy force.


Tie 10%:
Expensive:
To hit: +5[crew] +4[software] +1[accurate] +1[aid] -0[evade] -3[dodge] = +8, auto-hit, average Effect 7, crit on 6+
Damage: 4D +7[effect] -15[armour] ≈ 6,13 damage, killing 6,13 / ( 17 * 2 ) ≈ 18% of enemy force.

Cheap:
To hit: +5[crew] +3[software] +1[aid] -2[evade] -3[dodge] = +4, hit on 4+ (92%), average Effect 3, crit on 10+
Damage: 2D +3[effect] -5[armour] ≈ 4,98 damage, killing 0,92 * 4,98 * 2 / 18 ≈ 50,9% of enemy force.


Expensive wins 34%:
Expensive:
To hit: +5[crew] +4[software] +1[accurate] +1[aid] +2[dogfight] -0[evade] -3[dodge] = +10, auto-hit, average Effect 9, crit on 4+
Damage: 4D +9[effect] -15[armour] ≈ 8,04 damage, killing 8,04 / ( 17 * 2 ) ≈ 23,6% of enemy force.

Cheap:
To hit: +5[crew] +3[software] +1[aid] -2[dogfight] -2[evade] -3[dodge] = +2, hit on 6+ (72%), average Effect 1, crit on 10+
Damage: 2D +1[effect] -5[armour] ≈ 3,06 damage, killing 0,72 * 3,06 * 2 / 18 ≈ 24,5% of enemy force.


TOTALLY:
Expensive:
Kills 56% * 12,9% + 10% * 18% + 34% * 23,6% ≈ 17% of enemy force.

Cheap:
Kills 56% * 77,8% + 10% * 50,9% + 34% * 24,5% ≈ 57% of enemy force.


Cheaper fighters win. After 2 rounds all expensive fighters are probably killed, but no cheap fighters.

 

[phavoc]

Hangar capacity is just as limited as the number of fighters, by cost.

Yes, that's true. But it doesn't address the issue of you having X tons set aside for fighters in your hangar. Thus IF you can afford it, the more powerful and capable fighter you can carry, the more likely you are to prevail over your opponent. That is the point I am making.

And again I would call that a luxury. In an Island Cluster campaign you only need to lose a single battle to have your homeworld occupied, game over. Poland in 1939 had the same experience. Keeping your soldiers alive is important, winning the war is more important.

History says otherwise. During the Battle of Britain England was able to build new fighter craft in months. But you could not "build" an experienced fighter pilot in the same period. With much of the air war being fought over or near the UK, they were able to rescue or recover many pilots. The Germans didn't have the luxury until air combat began taking place regularly over the continent. Then they, too, were able to reap this benefit. Japan suffered horrendous losses at Midway, but the biggest loss they suffered was that of experienced air crews. Towards the end of the war they were able to field new aircraft, but the crews were inexperienced, and with the aircraft manned by green crews, they could not take advantage of the inherent differences of the Zero vs. a Wildcat (and later Hellcat and Corsairs) that the US pilots had. A Zero is a deadly weapon in the hands of a skilled user, it's a flying deathtrap in the hands of an unskilled one. US flight crews, green as some of them were, had the advantage of self-sealing fuel tanks, and armor. When they made mistakes their craft could take punishment, and later, if they had to bail out, they survived and were recovered at far higher rates than the Japanese, thus they were able to take their experience back into the next battle.

Imagine that you have 1000 expensive fighters as in the OP and that the enemy invades your home system with 2000 cheap fighters. Using the Fleet combat example above we see that you kill about 20% of the enemy force in the first round or about 430 enemy fighters. The enemy kills about 60% of your force or about 600 of your fighters. The next round the odds are overwhelming and your remaining fighters die with minimal losses for the enemy. In total you lost 1000 fighters and the enemy lost 500. Most of the crews survived according to the rules, and are presumably rescued by the winner. The cheaper fighters win the battle with less losses, in either personnel or money.

The question here is are you fighting a single battle, or fighting a war? The odds are, all things being equal, the side able to gain the most experience with the least losses will win. As to quality vs. quantity... look at some of the great tank battles of WW2. 100 T-34s vs 250 PzKIV.... guess who is gonna win that battle? Modern day, M1/Chieftans vs. T-90s. Same thing. Numbers don't always equate to winning.

Of course these are all examples of reality, and aren't necessarily well suited to gaming comparisons.

 

[phavoc]

c) You either have a +3 to hit from firecontrol, or a -2 due to evade. The expensive-ish fighters can actually run a further -3 in the dogfight, while enjoying the +1 accurate from accurate.

Let's see, basic system, single dogfight:

Assume 2 cheap fighters for each expensive fighter (carrier included), so fight 10 expensive vs 20 cheap. Cheap wins dogfight.
Expensive runs Evade/2 and FireControl/4. Hull 18.
Cheap runs FireControl/3. Hull 17.

This comparison is fair how? Assuming same tonnage per fighter, where is your "cheap" vs. "expensive"coming from?

The carrier alone would require twice the hangar tonnage,along with additional flight crews, deck crews, fuel bunkerage, ammunition storage, and the additional crew required to support a larger ship.

Take two 5,000 ton carriers (for example) THEN build out your flights based on available hangar tonnage. THEN you have a more accurate comparison of cheap vs. expensive fighters. If this combat were planetary based, that would change the equation. But if you are talking carrier vs. carrier, you don't get TWICE the number of fighters for the same hull tonnage. You get EQUAL numbers of fighters for the same hull tonnage.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I have included the cost of the carrier.

Expensive fighter is defined in the OP
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=901010#p901010
40 dT, Big computer, MCr ~90

Cheap fighter is defined in this thread:
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=901014#p901014
35 dT, Small computer, MCr ~35

A very simple carrier costs about MCr 1 / dT fighter, see the Carriers Compared thread:
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=901041#p901041

So expensive fighter costs MCr 90 + 40[carrier] = MCr 130.
Cheap fighter costs MCr 35 + 35[carrier] = MCr 70.
As I explained earlier in this thread:
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=901018#p901018

 

[Nerhesi]

Expensive:
To hit: +5[crew] +4[software] +1[accurate] +1[aid] -2[dogfight] -0[evade] -3[dodge] = +6, auto-hit, average Effect 5, crit on 8+
Damage: 4D +5[effect] -15[armour] ≈ 4,37 damage.
10 fighters do average 10 * 4,37 ≈ 44 damage killing 44 / ( 17 * 20 ) ≈ 12,9% of enemy force.

Cheap:
To hit: +5[crew] +3[software] +1[aid] +2[dogfight] -2[evade] -3[dodge] = +6, auto-hit, average Effect 5, crit on 8+
Damage: 2D +5[effect] -5[armour] ≈ 7,02 damage.
20 fighters do average 20 * 7,02 ≈ 140 damage, killing 140 / ( 18 * 10 ) ≈ 77,8% of enemy force.
Added crits for sustained damage kill most enemy fighters, near 100% kill in a single round.

Cheap fighters slaughter expensive fighters.

You've got a couple of assumptions here.

a) That Aid Gunners makes sense for fighters (Literally speaking, we can argue this both ways. It explicitly delineates that the pilot starts a task-chain for "his gunners" to create a more stable firing platform. A pilot cannot be synonymous with "his gunners" as they are clearly articulated here as different entities. The fact that a pilot IS also the gunner in a fighter, would then not allow him to stabilize for himself). Of course - This can be argued equally from the other direction (but probably not as strong intuitively).

b) Crew is a +5 but dodge is only a +3? Both attack and dodge are based on "skill" - which includes characteristics, implants, etc.. I'm assuming you basing this on a characteristic DM of +2, and a skill of 3 for your +5.

Therefore:

Expensive:
To hit: +5[crew] +4[software] +1[accurate] -2[dogfight] -0[evade] -5[dodge] = +3 to hit.
Damage: 4D +3[effect] -15[armour] ≈ 4,37 damage.

Cheap:
To hit: +5[crew] +3[software] +2[dogfight] -2[evade] -5[dodge] = +3 to hit
Damage: 2D +5[effect] -5[armour] ≈ 7,02 damage.

Yyyyup - even with the above changes the result is the same overall. Two side notes:

a) I wonder if the incorporation of a more realistic outnumbering bonus would make the difference.. rather than just the -1 for every fighter ... if we take a look at having that bonus apply for each outnumbering factor. Example, two times more fighters on one side = -1. Three times = -2. Again - wouldn't have an impact here, the -1 would still tip it.

b) Tachyon seems to be the Third Imperium go-to for fighters then. Granted not accurate but the average damage is much better when comparing to Armour 15 fighters.

Finally - with the fighter bonus for outnumbering as it stands, I wonder if each fighter squadron should be engaging while escorted by 30 really crappy 5 MCr fighters that are just there for numerical advantage

 

[arcador]

Perhaps we will see if the squadron rules are updated in that particular regard.