"Full Thrust: Do fighter types make a difference?" Topic

Please use actually battles to illustrate, if possible.

An example might be fleets that had mostly light carriers and escorts, and one using standard fighters, the other using a mix of interceptors and torpedo fighters.

I tend to avoid using fighters, but realize I've never seen much discussion about types. Also, I'd like to keep hybrid fighters another discussion.

Thanks!

Doug

Jump over to the FT Facebook FT page or Starship Combat News. There have been lots of discussions there on the subject.

When I use them I usually have a mix of fighter types just as you suggested. Intercepters to deal with the defending fighter swarms and then Torpedo Fighters to take on the enemy ships. At times I like to have the Interceptors stick in close to the attacking fleet to help with the incoming Missles. Never seem to have enough PDS's to deal with the FSE missle swarms.

I am partial to heavy fighters better defense on a general purpose fighter .

@Cold Steel Anti-FB Luddite that I am, don't think I can look there, but will troll, er, have a look at SCN. I greatly admire Dean, visit regularly, but the timeout on the forums stunts my participation.

Before offering the usual suggestions, viz 'Luddite.'

@dmebust I quite understand the fear of FSE, but I have a nasty habit of not keeping speed up. Slower you are, better the target, of course.

@ming31 Worth the extra points, i.e., three heavies to five standard[GP]?

Thanks!

Doug

Edit: Though, I suppose a general favoring of one fighter design would suggest it as the new 'standard'.

I think it also comes down to how many bays you've got in the fleet. If you have a small number, I would make them interceptors. Smaller numbers of fighters lack the ability to penetrate an enemy's point defense or his own fighters, and even if they do, they often lack the ability to make a decisive impact on the enemy. A small number of interceptors, however, can make a huge impact in defense of your fleet.

Larger number of bays in a fleet lend themselves more to specialization. I tend to stay away from torpedo fighters,as they're a one-shot weapon. Attack fighters work very well, but require some fighter screen, be it interceptors or standard fighters.

The heavy modification is pretty effective, so long as you've got the points to spare for it.

I tend to go with fighters that fit whatever genre the fleet im playing is based on. BSG, star trek, etc.

That said, it depends on my opponenet and how many squadrons i can field. If a small number interceptors are the best bet but more often than not i'll go with standard fighters for the flexibility. I'll use torp fighters ocasionally but i tend to 'wiff' die rolls. Lol. Same with heavy fighters- my opponents always seems to roll 6s against those.

For the star trek fleet i take graser or missile fighters simply because thats close to what the SFB versions used.

For BSG colonials the vipers are typically standard and the raptors are multirole pulse torp or assault shuttles

I think it also comes down to how many bays you've got in the fleet.

Probably one of the things I have against fighter rules as the stand; there feels a big disconnect in scale vs effect.

Doug

I'm afraid I don't completely understand. It seems like you're saying that the increase in bays results in an exponential increase in effectiveness, which I think seems like a reasonable correlation.

Probably one of the things I have against fighter rules as the stand; there feels a big disconnect in scale vs effect.

But current wet-navy aviation has shown that there is a dramatic increase in combat effectiveness as the number of aircraft carried increases. (OK, it's actually the other way 'round: combat effectiveness drops faster than the number of aircraft does when you're talking about a carrier's air wing. Two carriers that can only carry ~35 birds each are not as effective as one carrier with 70 birds.)

Doug,

I have an idea for you concerning the timeouts on SCN. I have never had that happen there, but it has happened to me in the past.

Have you considered typing out your replies in Word or a text file, copying and pasting the replies?

It seems like you're saying that the increase in bays results in an exponential increase in effectiveness, which I think seems like a reasonable correlation.

A geometric increase would more closely match increase of cost, and in the game play. May or may not match 'real world' naval experience/theory, but playable force costing is important in a game.

@Lion Looking more at sheer number of birds altogether, whether divided 'twixt one, two, many platforms.

@billclo You know how to pitch to us Luddites… ;->=

I could use an assist with searching within the fora, though. I'm getting 'too common words' failure when using 'full thrust fighters'. Suggestions, anyone, how to find the threads?

Doug

Ok, I can understand that complaint. From a gamin perspective, it can unbalance things a bit. But that kind of exponential increase is present with other systems. Take CL 1 Beams. Small numbers increase the effectiveness of your fleet certainly (just as fighters would) but when used in large numbers their effectiveness (given their low point cost, minimal mass, and all arc fire) increases dramatically (think about it, you can mount four all arc CL 1 beams for the same price and mass as a one arc CL 3 beam; extrapolate from there and things get silly). You pay a price in range, sure, but you also pay a price when you increase the number of fighters in your fleet.

Perhaps we've wandered off topic a bit from your original inquiry, so apologies for that.

To get back to that, yes, fighter types make a difference….but that might have been made clear in my first post. :)

@Lion Looking more at sheer number of birds altogether, whether divided 'twixt one, two, many platforms.

The math still works. One carrier bringing ~35 planes is less than half as effective as one carrier bringing ~70 (and costs very nearly the same as the bigger carrier!).

Perhaps we've wandered off topic a bit from your original inquiry, so apologies for that.

Shouldn't apologize if I'm dumb enough to follow along… ;->=

Still want to hear opinions on using various fighter types. Real game experience desirable, but not required. ;->=

Doug

Still want to hear opinions on using various fighter types. Real game experience desirable, but not required. ;->=

Got it. I don't have actual AARs, but I can tell you what I worked with. I'll caveat this by saying my experience is a bit outdated, as I haven't played in some time (though I'm getting back into it). And I haven't worked with any of the newest fighters from Cross Dimensions or Continuum.

Torpedo fighters, in the games I used them, were never worth it. While they have enormous potential to damage enemy ships, they have an equal potential to do very little. And after that, they're done as they have to return to rearm (requiring a carrier that won't change course at all). To me, one of the greater strengths of using fighters is to constantly harass the enemy and make him react to another factor on the gaming table. Torpedo fighters don't accomplish this.

Interceptors are vicious. Their increased effectiveness allows them to be vastly superior to point defense, though they obviously require more mass to get them out there. They have the added benefit of flexibility, in that they can go anywhere. Truly useful against FSE fleets, as they handle fighters leaving your PDS to handle missiles.

Heavy modifications, paired with interceptors, make for a very tough screen for enemy fighters to penetrate.

Attack fighters require a clear path to the target. They accomplish much more damage, but if they get caught by enemy fighters en route to the target they can get chopped up pretty easily without dishing out much hurt in return. When I tried to use them, I always found it too hard to coordinate their escort fighters with them. The problem was that you needed more escort squadrons than the enemy had attacking squadrons. It's a difficult balance to achieve there.

Fast fighters are of little use, in my opinion.

This brings me to the conclusion that multi-role fighters are perhaps the best. As they're written for the Japanese fleet (being able to change between attack and interceptor at the beginning of each turn) they are overpowered. In the few times I gamed with those rules the fighters reigned supreme. The rules in Cross Dimensions, where multi-role fighters can be either interceptors or attack fighters but must be set up as such while on a carrier is closer to being in balance. I haven't gamed with it, but I imagine it injects an interesting element to game play as you may not want to simply scramble all fighters on the first turn (as most players are prone to do).

Ok, so that might have been a bit much…..

Ok, so that might have been a bit much……..

Without battle examples? Sure is!

Just teasing; that was awesome.

Obviously, your opinion of torpedo fighters is hardly unique. Bit disappointed, but I thought they were assured of more damage. Will have to reread.

As I will with the original multi-roles…

They better cost a bunch if you can switch every turn. Switching on the carrier, for the reason you cite for TB's, merely means you get to chose before launching, which is still huge.

Having interceptors, heck, having heavy PDS, when facing a gun line, is very discouraging. You really do start counting 'wasted' points.

Other, other hand, few times I've had fighters, they tend not to last long enough to worry about second or third uses.

I still don't love the idea of fighters, but I'm certainly learning a bunch. Thanks, all!

Doug