Feasibility question - kamikaze fighters

[ShiQiaozhi]

IMTU, one of my alien races (the perfidious Veloth, whom you can read about in the Contact! forum) make extensive use of kamikaze fighters. In lieu of heavy battleships, they build carriers and fill them with Thrust-6 fightercraft. These fighters, rather than carrying lasers or missiles, carry as many missile warheads as can be crammed on them, and a huge shaped charge at the front of the ship. Once these fighters get into close range, they fire off their shaped charges, doing horrendous damage. It goes without saying that this destroys the fighter.

My questions for the assembled are as follows.

1) What is the most damage that such a weapon could concievably do? I'm thinking that if you stuck 40 missile warheads (assuming each missile is one ton and the missile is half-fuel-half-propellant) on a Pinnace and detonated it at extremely close range, it'd be the equivalent of 40 missiles, especially if the missiles were propped up somehow and not just sitting in the cargo hold.

2) Does this make strategic sense? Part of me thinks that it'd be better to hit with one big missile rather than 40 little ones, because then there'd be better penetration.

3) Is it feasible at all to use fighters against Imperium battleships? If I remember correctly, most battleships are covered in little turrets for just such a contingency. Can a fighter spacecraft get anywhere near a modern battlecruiser, or would it get shot to pieces?

 

[sabredog]

IMTU, one of my alien races (the perfidious Veloth, whom you can read about in the Contact! forum) make extensive use of kamikaze fighters. In lieu of heavy battleships, they build carriers and fill them with Thrust-6 fightercraft. These fighters, rather than carrying lasers or missiles, carry as many missile warheads as can be crammed on them, and a huge shaped charge at the front of the ship. Once these fighters get into close range, they fire off their shaped charges, doing horrendous damage. It goes without saying that this destroys the fighter.

My questions for the assembled are as follows.

1) What is the most damage that such a weapon could concievably do? I'm thinking that if you stuck 40 missile warheads (assuming each missile is one ton and the missile is half-fuel-half-propellant) on a Pinnace and detonated it at extremely close range, it'd be the equivalent of 40 missiles, especially if the missiles were propped up somehow and not just sitting in the cargo hold.

2) Does this make strategic sense? Part of me thinks that it'd be better to hit with one big missile rather than 40 little ones, because then there'd be better penetration.

3) Is it feasible at all to use fighters against Imperium battleships? If I remember correctly, most battleships are covered in little turrets for just such a contingency. Can a fighter spacecraft get anywhere near a modern battlecruiser, or would it get shot to pieces?

#3...no, not very many if any all will get through. Using HG rules as they are fighters are worthless except as screens against small craft or as roving batteries - but those batteries are too small to hurt capital ships. And all those craft that may be screening the BB's are hard to get past, too.

#2...no, better missile boat designs with swarms of missile batteries striking from long range where the beam weapons are at a disadvantage than the waste of personnel and materials going into kamakazis. That tactic was one of purest desperation and lack of good strategic sense on the part of a nation on the losing end of what they saw as a war to the death. They didn't think they would really win, only that they would make the enemy pay a disproportionate price for victory. And somewhere in there was a messed up sense of "honor". In the end, though it achieved nothing and would be utterly ridiculous to attempt in a war if you have any intentions of winning.

The Soviets had a tactis they used (infrequently, but they gave you a medal for it) called the "turan" that involved chewing up the tail or wing of an enemy plane in WW2 with your prop if you were out of ammo and it was the only way to achieve victory. If you survived then so much the better. in fact, pilots were sent to penal units (where they had to spend x-number of missions as the rear gunner of an IL-2m (not a good chance of survival ther BTW) if they attempted turan unnecessarily and it cost a perfectly good airplane.

#1...Better again to either use swarms of cheap missile boats (capital or slightly smaller ships loaded with missile bays) or drone attack craft since you will get the same result with less cost and ships you can use again and again.

At long range missiles don't have the negative modifiers to hit that beam weapons do, so the ships firing them (if they have high agility) can conceivably fire off their loads of missile swarms and stay at long range for a few turns. Then when they are empty they can skeddadle if they have the fuel and somewhere to run to in the disengagement phase. Shoot n' scoot, as it were. in fact, if you make those types your primary line of battle ships and then a line of cheaper ships with beam weapons to screen for them while the missile carriers get away that might work out for what you are looking for.

 

[Tellon]

With Lasers and PAWS made in TNE overpowered, thus making thier ROF really high -- it makes them as great Ack-Ack/Anti-missile turrets

so a bunch of fighters w/ missiles would get shot up

I would go for Missile boats -- say they hide out in a Gas Giant -- pop-out after detecting thier prey -- fire thier load as the missiles are taken over by MFD's -- the missile boat heads back into the Gas Giants atmosphere to reload and use the PEMS to do it again ...

kinda like a "Pop n Drop" tactic used by Spec Ops folks -- or Subs

So it becomes a game of ambushing the enemy -- which makes the Gas Giants such a dangerous locale when an enemy fleet comes into a system and has to refuel.

From my old SFB (Star Fleet Battles) days, I would love the Kzinti -- massive missile barrages would takje out just about anything so long as it wasn't covered by anti-missile defenses. -- So imagine -- 50 Missile Barbettes firing -- that is 250 missiles - all controlled by MFD's, it will make the target VERY nervous .. lol.

Another tactic is plentiful Planetary defense "satillites" with MFD's and missile Barbettes -- so using them with missile boats - it can get sickening fast. And don't forget Defense Stations -- basically a large Highport -- built for fighting fleets ...

 

[ShiQiaozhi]

Hmm . . . I see what you're saying.

The thing I'm urgent about is that their big capital ships be carrier-based or missile-based, rather than spinal-weapon battleship types. That way, they can hang back behind the smaller cruisers and not get shot at.

How would you guys, with your superior experience, build a competant, TL13 fleet that doesn't involve heavy battleships?

 

[whartung]

Simple, change the "rules".

Basically, the foundations of a designed fleet hinge around the rules. For example, the comment that fighters don't work against capital ships is because, when you use the HG rules, the fighters are simply too small and the capital ships to armored for fighters to be much more than a nuisance. The rules charts simply won't let a small fighter be effective against a large ship. Dice won't roll that way.

Look at the modern navy, for example, where it only takes a few missile strikes to disable a capital ship, missiles easily launched by small aircraft. Around these "rules", form doctrines of design.

So, if you want a TL13 fleet that doesn't expand in to large capital ships, come up with a reason that it doesn't happen. Can't crew large ships, don't have a ship yard that big, material science won't let you build a ship of that size, can't make an M-Drive big enough, whatever.

Maybe it's cultural. The Gods say thall shant have large ships, and, in YTU, The Gods hold sway across even competing navies, so everyone just build 5K Ton ships. Culturally honorbound to have all fights "mano a mano", thus the prevalence of single seat fighters.

Who knows.

 

[sabredog]

Well, strictly going by the HG rules the battle lines can't be screened that way. The line fighting is the only one that can be firing and the rest are considered behind it and not doing any shooting.

So you can't have the spinal capital ships firing from behind a screening line of cruisers - they aren't dropping their shot in like old WW1 dreadnaughts in other words while destroyers and cruisers run interference.

So you don't have o worry about the scenario you describe unless you house rule (as I have IMTU) that lines can fire through each other. of course if you do house rule that it creates the problem of ships being able to try to hit ships behind the screening line, but I ruled that the screening line is there to add it's defenses for missile and small ship interception only, and the line behind it can't fire through.

But back to your problem:
First, remember that combat begins at long range, and beam weapons fire at a negative at long range while missiles do not. Also, more is better as the defenses attrit the missile salvos.

Second, the fleet with the higher agility, number of ships, and best commander determines range changes after the first turn, so if you have lots of cheap missile boats (a term from the old game Imperium, where the Terrans used swarms of these to beat on the beam heavy Imperial fleet) with high agility they can probably stay out at their preferred range and be harder to hit with those spinal guns and lasers. High agility also means you can get out of the fight before the other guy mauls you so you can come back and hit him again another day.

***It's important to note that the fleet's agility is determined by the lowest agility within it - so keep it the same across the board or disengage the damaged slower ones ASAP.***

And third, take note of the best hull configuration to use against beam weapons like PAWs and Meson Guns. Also size is a disadvantage: bigger ships are easier to hit while smaller ones have a negative modifier. So...

Don't build anything above 10k tons (DM 0) and preferable below (missiles don't need energy points so a 100-ton bay (TL-13 value of 9) is a cheap thing to fit in a small hull).

Build them in configurations 7 (hardest to hit with spinal guns and cheapest at 50% off), 9 (buffered planetoids also come w/ free armor), 1 (costliest), or cone (good compromise for a streamlined ship to hide in oceans or gas giants).

 

[sabredog]

Example of a TL-13 Missile cruiser:

Not a perfect design, but it's something I just made here so you can mess with it however you want. It's a dispersed structure with a high computer rating and high agility to make it hard to hit (not to mention the armor and nuke damper). It carries and extra 1000 tons of fuel so it can cover 3 parsecs in two jumps for long range, but you could also use that for a couple of 500 ton SDB's, or whatever.

It is mainly armed for long range missile fire, but it still has some powerful beam weapons in case it has to fight closer in for some reason. And it has lasers to add another layer of defensive shielding against incoming missiles and small craft.

And for ortillery bombardment you could add some missile magazines by deducting cargo space or fuel tankage as a variant with shorter jump legs.


Missile Cruiser Tl-13 2600MCr (approx)

CM-K7G255G3-860300-70909-0
1 Battery Code 3 Sandcaster Turrets (triple)
1 Battery Code 7 Laser Turrets (triple)
3 Batteries Code 9 PAW Bays
6 Batteries Code 9 Missile Bays


Hull= 10,000 dispersed structure

Computer Model 7fib

Jump Drive 2
Manuever Drive 5 (Agility 5/ Emer 5)
Power Plant 5

Fuel = 3500 tons (jump-3 range + maneuver fuel)

Armor = 8
Code 3 Nuclear Damper

6 100-ton Missile Bays
3 100-ton PAW bays
6 Triple Beam Laser Turrets (1 battery)
4 Triple Sandcaster Turrets (1 battery)

Vehicles = 2 Pinnaces

Cargo = 230 tons

Crew = 108 (I included 1 stateroom per crew for those long cruises)

Command
Captain
XO/2nd Pilot
Navigator
Comms
Computer
Chief Medical

Engineering
Chief Engineer
27 Ratings

Gunnery
Chief Weps
28 Gunners

Flight
4 crew for pinnaces

Services
20 Assorted

Marines
20

 

[sabredog]

Another thing you can do, expanding here on what whartung said, is change the rules a little.

If you are running a campaign with things going on mainly on the PC level so the players will be involved in a lot of the action instead of the huge, strategic or grand tactical level where they just kind of watch the action then it's easy to get around things like fighter uselessness and the tactical doctrine/ design you are wanting.

For example, I use a two-tiered design house rule to cover the small ship universe type stuff the players are involved in on a campaign play level. I have house rules to incorporate some HG rules and gear into it so that ships ranging to an upper limit of 5000 tons get to use PAW bays and fusion guns, but still run combat under Book 2 rules for more role-play fun. Basically civilian ships build with Book 2, but warships use HG. Players, bounty hunters, mercenaries and such love to get decommissioned warships so they can build with the more exotic weapons. With Book 2 I also get effective fighters and small craft. Mainly this is ion the TL-13 or less level because of in-game treaties and other things I have going, too.

I use my own house rules for combat damage using a point system, and a similar set of combat tables to Book 2's; just added a few extra damage locations for detail.

For the grand tactical or strategic scale - where players only swim in the shadow of the 250kt BAttleships and 500kt Battlecarriers - I use pure HG. But the players don't venture into this kind of action much, except to try to get out of the system before it gets blown to heck and gone. It's there for window dressing and those rare instances when I play my campaign as a wargame (it's a home grown non-OTU game BTW) so I can game out ideas I have and background events that will later effect the players on there level.

If you want to see these rules so you have some ideas as to what can be done to work outside the box send me a PM and I'll give them to you.

But don't be afraid to tinker - it's your game, you paid for it, and you can use it however you want.

 

[sabredog]

And here's a TL-13 Heavy Missile Boat made for hiding in those gas giants or oceans and popping out to defend a system. These could also be launched off of dispersed structure battle-rider carriers.

They are fast, have a high computer rating and as a cone configuration they have the best modifiers for avoiding hits from spinal weapons that a streamlined ship can have. The cargo tonnage can be swapped for more fuel to keep it in space longer, or for ferrying fuel to other ships that can't scoop. Or troops, missile for longer time in combat, etc.

At 1000 tons it seems large, but it means it can carry a code 9 missile bay - smaller than that and you might as well just have turrets.


In-System Missile Boat TL-13

Hull 1000ton Cone

Computer Model 7fib

M-Drive – 6 (Agility 6)
Power Plant – 7
Fuel = 40 tons

Armor – 4

1, 100-ton Missile Bay

Staterooms = 32

Cargo = 40 tons

Crew

Command
Captain
XO/2nd Pilot
Pilot
Navigator
Comms
Computer
Chief Medical

Engineering
3 Engineers

Gunnery
3 Gunners

Services
10 Assorted
10 Ship’s Security Troops

Remember, these designs are just off the top of my head - you can do better than this but maybe they'll help get the juices flowing.

 

[Whipsnade]

Hmm . . . I see what you're saying.

ShiQiaozhi,

I doubt it.

How would you guys, with your superior experience, build a competant, TL13 fleet that doesn't involve heavy battleships?

As Whartung as already explained: Change The Rules.

Your ideas regarding the Veloth are nonsense within the starship combat rules as written. What you need to do is simply change those rules.

Don't let the rules get in the way of your story. Change the rules to fit your story instead.

A change as simple as capping tech level to 12 or so will make fighters ship killers within the HG2 rules. As TL increases, the ability of weapons carried by fighters to hit, penetrate, and inflict damage decreases eventually making fighters useless for all but the most specialized missions.

Cap your story's tech level and Veloth fighters will rules the skies.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Matt123]

As Bill has already mentioned at TL12 & 13, fighters dominate, less so at TL 13, but yes I would happily build a fighter heavy navy at TL13.

Fighters compete & kick ass at these TL's so long as you equip them with the best computers, sadly this makes them large and expensive - not exactly ideal for kamikazee pilots. At TL14 & 15 fighters loose effictiveness in HG, due in large part to the armour levels (#20 & #21) of buffered planetoid capital ships, making fighter weapons in-effective.

A small caveat, I have yet to play HG using Don's new rules clarifications, but I don't expect the dynamic to have changed much.

At all TL's a well designed heavy fighter will have a -8 defence modifier, whilst relying on numbers to get as many factor 1, 2 or 3 hits as possible.

I'll use Sabredogs Missile Cruiser as an example, with the acknowlegement that Sabredog did not design it to survive fighters. I'm sure he would design it differantly vs a TL13 carrier navy. But it'll do as a red team in this exercise.

A TL13 Fighter with a #3 missile battery, Agility 6, bridge & computer 7 (no armour) costs around 70MCr in volume and weighs less than 20tn. For the cost of the missile cruiser we can field 37 of them. This ignores of course the cost of the carrier. I can design a pretty defenceless 800tn J2 carrier for around 300MCr or the cost of say 5 fighters, but for arguements sake we will cut 37 fighters back to 20.

Turn one. All combat is at long range.
- Missile Cruiser 1#7 laser turret, hits on 5+, modified to 14+ (+8 def mod +1 at long range = cannot hit, will use in defensive fire instead)
3#9 Particle Bays, hits on 4+, modified to 12+ (2.77% chance or one hit per 12 rounds)
6#9 Missile Bays, hits on 2+, modified to 10+ (16.6% chance or 1 hit per round)
One Fighter is hit & mission killed by a #9 missile battery (9 critical hits), 20 Fighters return fire (combat is simultaneous).
20#3 Missile Batteries firing HE, 5+ to hit, modified to 10+ (-5 Agility, 16.66% chance to hit or 3.333 hits)
Defensive fire 1#3 Sand, needs 5+ to penetrate (stops 1 16.66% of the time)
1#7 laser, needs 9+ to penetrate (stops 1 83.33% of the time). Assume one hit stopped and we have 2.33 penetrations.
Damage is most likely to be Weapon-1 (16/36 = 44.44%) or Fuel-1 (5/36 = 13.88% which I'll ignore) 2.33 pentrating hits *44.44% = 1 weapon-1 damage, resulting in 1#9 Missile battery being destroyed

Turn two
Two fighters are now mission killed.
19 Fighters fire back, resulting in 1#9 Particle Accelerator being destroyed.

Turn six
Six fighters are mission killied (15 firing this turn)
The Missile Cruiser is down to 2#9 Particle Accelerators & 5#9 Missile Bays.
15#3 missile batteries (16.66% chance of a hit) gives 2.5 hits. There is no defensive five.
2.5 hits result in (44.4% chance) 1.11 (rounded down) weapon-1 hit on a #9 missile battery.

Turn seven
The missile Cruiser has 2#9 PA's hitting on 2.77% chance, achieving one hit per 18 turns.
4#9 Missile Bays hitting on 10+ (16.66% chance) or twice in three rounds, we will assume they miss this turn for the first time.
Six fighters are mission killed, 14 fire, 14#3 missiles (16.66% chance of a hit) gives 2.33 hits. There is no defensive five.
2.33 hits result in (44.4% chance) 1 weapon-1 hit on a #9 PA.

Turn eight
seven fighters are bow mission killed. 14 fighters fire this turn destroying a #9 missile battery.

Turn nine
The missile Cruiser has 1#9 PA's hitting on 2.77% chance, achieving one hit per 36 turns.
3#9 Missile Bays hitting on 10+ (16.66% chance) or once every second round, we will be generous and assume they hit this turn.
Eight fighters are mission killed, 13 fire, 14#3 missiles (16.66% chance of a hit) gives 2.16 hits. There is no defensive five.
2.16 hits result in (44.4% chance) 0.96 weapon-1 hits (rounded up) on the last #9 PA.

Turn ten
The Missile Cruiser misses with its remaining 3#9 Missile Bays, losing another one in return fire.

Following Turns...
Assuming the Missile Cruiser does not try to escape, in three or four rounds it is weaponless, whilst 11 or 12 Fighters remain fully combat effective to negotiate its surrender.

Of course both sides would be operating in a mutually supporting fleet, so "one on one" battles may not be representative, but even with Don's HG clarifications I suspect it will still apply that at TL11-13, carrier fleets will mission kill most battleship fleets before they themselves are killed.

 

[sabredog]

What might also not be representative is that fighters are abstracted to the same level as larger ships in HG with regard to missile capability. Fighters don't have magazines (which, yes those vanished for the purpose of using them to determine a ship's ability as an ortillery platform in HG2, it must be assumed that there are magazines for all those turreted and bay missile emplacements for the volume of fire and duration of combat to be what it is in HG battles) like ships do.

So if you figure a fighter has 3 missile launchers with three missiles each, and that the fighter launches three missiles a round to achieve the battery code it does, then the fighter is out of missiles on 3 turns. Since turrets are still distinguished in HG codes by their capacity in weapons it must be assumed that fighters are the same. And reloading turnarounds are not in the HG rules for missile armed fighter craft so I guess the reloads just teleport in with Ancient technology?

My house rule for this is that fighters are built one of two ways: torpedo/bombers with 3 racks and after three fires they are empty, and fighter/interdiction with 2 pulse lasers which can stay in the battle the whole time, but they are only good for screening against other fighters and small ships. It's anachronistic and all but it works for that nit-pick about the unlimited missiles thing for fighters. I do have 2 man jobs with reloads, but they just cause a lot of bookkeeping headaches.

Since HG doesn't make this sort of distinction it puts fighters armed with missiles at an illogical advantage in firepower.

But be that as it may, the example above is valid if you assume the cruiser isn't depending solely on itself (if at all) for small craft and missile defense. it was intended more for a patrol craft that could act in a fleet action as part of a combined arms squadron.

Personally, my fleets are pretty simple and operate around a carrier task force sort of model with attached battleship squadrons for the heavy firepower. Escort vessels are small, fast, and laser heavy to better screen against incoming missiles until the heavies can get into range and bring the shipkiller spinal meson guns to bear. Yeah, it's all very Jutland but I can't resist that sort of thing. The HG rules beg for it.

My fighters do cost a lot with the computers and the best pilots available, but then I have this thing against using planetoids for ships - so rockships don't show up in my campaign. And that way fighters are still worth it up to TL-15 given my house rules on design and doctrine. (Which is kinda influenced by equal parts Robotech and WW2 Navy)

And it takes a boatload of those fighters, too, to form those flying batteries, so they are not realistically cost effective in my book since they will still take really heavy casualties compared to the capital ships. But then Battle Riders are better in a lot of ways , too, but I don't use them since they don't work for my universe.

And IMTU I just like the idea of fighters so my workaround is that I have only 6 battlecarriers in the Imperial Fleet (with 400 fighters each in equal parts torpedo and fighter types), and 10 Interdiction (or Frontier) carriers with 200 fighters each (150 fighter and 50 torpedo types each). And in battle I consider turnaround time for reloading...which adds the possibility of doing a Midway on a carrier if you catch it with the torpedo bombers reloading on board and get a good hangar hit or three!

But like I said, strictly using HG fighters really aren't any good at the level you are talking about, but I think the idea of reducing the TL to 12 (except for the higher bump up of power plant cost) would work far better and make more sense.

As for the bump up, unless you are really limiting yourself to the economic thing who cares? And if you are then just tax the buggers more - it's for their own good anyway!

 

[sabredog]

BTW: if you took the 1000 tons extra fuel capacity and loaded it with 20 ton fighters then you'd have 50 of the buggers ready to commit mayhem in one round since dispersed structures can launch all their carried craft in one turn.

That and maybe deleting at least one PAW bay to add ten more turrets for either another battery or two for anti-missile fighter defense would do the trick I think.

Launch fighters after jump in, hang back and let them thin out the incoming fighters, then move in for engaging the heavier ships if your fighters clear the road. Run if not. Which is pretty much like it's done even now.

 

[Matt123]

Yeah, but you aughta lose the factor 8 armour for your dispersed structure

& don't forget, the more stuff you add, including fighters etc, the more Cr the opposition gets as well.

 

[sabredog]

Yeah, my bad...I forgot they can't be armored like that. That'd get you another 50 or so fighters, too. I guess I spend too much time making pointy needles and boxy carriers. I'm old fashioned that way and the idea of a spidery looking ISS as a warship makes me shake my head and wonder what they think this is, a game?

"Ok Chief, think you can hit that gooseneck girder connecting the ship to it's drives?"

"Well, it'll be tough Skipper since it's so thin and hard to see, but if I just squint a little I think I can do it. Fire all batteries on that 100 meter spot on my mark!"

Blam...battle over as the spindly enemy spider ship falls apart when its shot in two. Or swarmed by marines loaded into assault landers and armed with plasma cutters. Ok, I'm over-thinking it into role-playing territory again but you might get my point.

 

[sabredog]

& don't forget, the more stuff you add, including fighters etc, the more Cr the opposition gets as well.

Only in a fair fight, and that's just how you end up losing! But I guess in TCS that's what you have to do, but not in an RPG campaign. Heck, the Imperium has to outwith the insidious Zho once in a while in spite of their fiendish mind-sucking ways.

 

[Matt123]

Only in a fair fight, and that's just how you end up losing! But I guess in TCS that's what you have to do...

Firstly, TCS is about getting the best bang for your MCr during the ship design stage. Thats where design comparisons come into play. In a "fair" fight the better optimised design, wins.

Second, your strategy is what ensures the fight isn't "fair", through interstellar maneouvre and retreat, not your design. Better optimised designs however will pay dividends.

But otherwise TCS isn't particularly well balanced, IMHO that makes it interesting. A good while back I read a very good tactical appraisel of each sytems starting position in the Islands Campaign written IIRC by Bill (Whipsnade). Not sure now where I read it tho'!

 

[sabredog]

TCS is a whole other animal from a campaign - more like a training simulator. I run a campaign and things are more complicated. But TCS serves its purpose I suppose.

Besides, the tactical options are somewhat limited for my tastes - I prefer sailing line of battle wargames to ships in space.

 

[Tellon]

My TL 10 5000 dTon beastie uses a PAW at 200 shots/turn -- and with 50 Missile Barbettes, (so that's 250 missiles/turn) -- and the 350 armor helps out too .. lol

I am gonna have to try this tactic out --

using fighters -- 10 or 20 dTon fighters each with missiles grouped together as a battery - and see if swarms of fighters can take out my Capital ship; as my SDB's are normally 100 dTon/400 dTon missile boats --

so if fighters *can* take down Capital ships -- or even cripple them -- then it might be interesting to make a 5000 dTon Fleet Carrier

But you guys are playing with TL 12/13 stuff -- so there is gonna be a big difference I think.

---

I have already made a 20 dTon Interrceptor (surface to orbit) that carries missiles -- so I technically don't even *have* to use Carriers -- I can launch the fighters directly from the planets surface to do a really quick target aquisition and launch the missile (the missile still would have to picked up by an MFD; as the fighter is too small to handle an MFD w/ TL 10 AEMS)

 

[Matt123]

so if fighters *can* take down Capital ships -- or even cripple them -- then it might be interesting to make a 5000 dTon Fleet Carrier

But you guys are playing with TL 12/13 stuff -- so there is gonna be a big difference I think.

We are also using CT, the dynamic may be differant in the system you are gaming.

Try your fighters without grouping them into larger batteries, you may be surprised at the results. Before you do tho', double check your design sequence whether you can have 50 turrets/barbettes AND a spinal mount on your 5000tn beastie. In most cases its one turret per 100 dtons.