Ad Astra! ... an Aurora Forum Game, run by blue emu

[BwenGun]

So if we loaded three Carriers with Gnats (1 missile each, 9424 kps, 20 per Carrier) and the other three with Typhoons (2 missiles each, 6870 kps, 15 per Carrier), that would give us 105 Fighters and an alpha-strike of 150 missiles, divided into 105 separate salvos.

A mix of Gnats and Typhoons sounds like the way to go. That way if all the Gnats get destroyed then there are still more Typhoons than there would be Spitfires, which means more of them are likely to get through the Prix missile barrage to fire their missiles.

[Guillaume HJ]

Gnats are great for speed and decoy capability, spitfires at providing the alpha strike. Typhoons are worse than Gnats for speed and decoy work, and worse than Spits for alpha strike capability. Their sole advantage is their versatility (if the enemy targets half of them, we have the other half just as capable, whereas if we mix and match and they hit the Spits instead of the Gnats, we're in deep trouble).

BwenGun - I feel that the small number advantage (nine more fighters) really doesn't make a big difference.

EDIT: Actually, counting, it could make a pretty large one, it make a fairly large difference fi the Prix do blow up 18 or more fighters. Interesting. Do we gamble on the Prix having a hard time wiping out 78 fighters (how many they would need to before the Typhoons have the advantage, or do we play it safe in case they do, at the cost of a larger alpha strike if they don't?

It's worth remembering that the Prix fired 63 (I think) size 1 salvoes at Wolf 294, of which 10 were aimed at our Rocks.

[blue emu]

Another point about increasing the speed of the Fighters is this:

If, like in the last engagement, we end up in a fighting retreat... hopefully, in any running battle, WE will be doing the running; there's too many nasty tricks that the down-range force can pull... I would hate to launch the Fighters under circumstances where we have no realistic expectation of recovering them, even if they should survive. Having Fighters that are significantly faster than our Carriers at least gives any survivors a chance to catch up with the Fleet and land-on.

[Jos de trol]

I agree that speed is not always the best strategic option, but it is a card that has been completely missing from our hand in our last engagement with the Prix, and might greatly increase our tactical flexibility. The trade-off of one missile vs two vs three is not quite as clear-cut as it sounds, because the smaller fighters take up less hangar space, so we can carry somewhat more of them (20 vs 15 vs 12).

that is quite true, but if the missiles of the enemy are already exhausted then the heavy fighters don't need to pose more numbers to hit. If there are still missiles being flung then having a couple more targets is a boon in itself since it's better to have some fighters with less missiles still standing than seeing all fighters with more missiles being picked off. 2 missiles with 15 fighters is certainly a good idea if the speed bonus has a concrete advantage (e.g. closely matches the one of the capital ships) on top of just being a better number. The problem at this point remains that even if the fighters return to their carriers after their initial strike, they'd be out of the fight for a long time while reloading. If it's just about a better number, then being able to put in one more missile is also nice since that can certainly hurt the enemy whereas a slight speed increase with no real value (e.g. still not able to catch up to anything) doesn't achieve much.

[blue emu]

As far as our force-mix goes... we could treat this coming battle as another learning experience, carry two Carriers full of EACH type (40 Gnats, 30 Typhoons, and 24 Spitfires) and then SEE which types perform better in action.

The problem at this point remains that even if the fighters return to their carriers after their initial strike, they'd be out of the fight for a long time while reloading.

Yes, for 36 minutes. However, we DID get in a second strike in the previous battle... and it was one of the Spitfires that immobilized that last Cruiser, and another of the Spitfires that killed it. Granted, by that time I had other options and could have finished it off with a different weapon-platform, but they seem useful for taking part in the opening skirmish, and reloading in time to polish off the cripples.

I think our Carrier-based strategy is working fairly well so far. One important point is that it takes years to upgrade the main armament of a Cruiser (first spend a year retooling the yard, then spend a year or two refitting new weapons and fire control, plus waiting for free slipways), while the main armament of a Carrier is its Fighters, which can be upgraded in a matter of weeks, without any need of retooling or waiting for slipways.

[TheLoneGunman]

I stand by my opinion that our carriers should house only Gnats.

Having heavier fighters that carry more than one missile launcher at this point is almost useless since we're not expecting our fighters to survive more than one or two enemy salvoes, and if they die with two or more missiles in their holds instead of one, we're just lost a ton of missiles.

[BwenGun]

As far as our force-mix goes... we could treat this coming battle as another learning experience, carry two Carriers full of EACH type (40 Gnats, 30 Typhoons, 24 Spitfires) and then SEE which types perform better in action.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

By the by seeing as I died gloriously, and not at all in a cowardly fashion with two pencils up my nose and a pair of boxers on my head, for Terra can I be reborn once again and placed in command of a fighter?

[Jos de trol]

I stand by my opinion that our carriers should house only Gnats.

Having heavier fighters that carry more than one missile launcher at this point is almost useless since we're not expecting our fighters to survive more than one or two enemy salvoes, and if they die with two or more missiles in their holds instead of one, we're just lost a ton of missiles.

It would mostly depend on the possibilities on the field ultimately. The ideal situation is that you can launch "metalshields" that are aimed at absorbing damage and if they can fire off their one missile then great. But if you then launch a second wave with 2 or 3 missiles while either the first wave still has fighters standing OR the enemy has depleted its missiles then the ball game changes and it's suddenly very nice to be able to fire your 2-3 missiles from within the remaining first wave (diluting the enemy's fire, assuming they don't have such good sensors and targetting AI that they always go for the fighters with the most missiles) or just unopposed.

[Lord Strange]

What about the Hurricanes? Do we not need their sensors?

[Amadeus]

I agree that speed is not always the best strategic option, but it is a card that has been completely missing from our hand in our last engagement with the Prix, and might greatly increase our tactical flexibility. The trade-off of one missile vs two vs three is not quite as clear-cut as it sounds, because the smaller fighters take up less hangar space, so we can carry somewhat more of them (20 vs 15 vs 12).

Nice to see some of techs coming to term and bringing some more operational choise to you !

I'm for the half Gnat half Typhoon option, as you said 30 vs 36 ASM won't make a big difference, whereas faster and more numerous fighters will give you a tactical advantage.

In alternative, if undecided, I would go for 2 - 2 - 2 for having all of them

PS:

...a command module instead of a bridge+crew quarters...

You never need bridge on ship less then 1000 ton

EDIT: Emu'ed of course !

[blue emu]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

By the by seeing as I died gloriously, and not at all in a cowardly fashion with two pencils up my nose and a pair of boxers on my head, for Terra can I be reborn once again and placed in command of a fighter?

Certainly... would you prefer a small, fast, lightly-armed fighter, or a slower but more heavily-armed one.

[BwenGun]

Certainly... would you prefer a small, fast, lightly-armed fighter, or a slower but more heavily-armed one.

One of the Typhoons if possible!

[blue emu]

What about the Hurricanes? Do we not need their sensors?

Not if the action takes place within 50 m-km of our AWACS Command Cruisers. However, I personally am leaning towards my suggestion of treating this as a leaning experience, and carrying a mix of all three types. I assume that TheLoneGunman is offering to carry Gnats.

[Cromelex]

However, I personally am leaning towards my suggestion of treating this as a leaning experience, and carrying a mix of all three types. I assume that TheLoneGunman is offering to carry Gnats.

So do I.

ESN Tambora, ready to carry a full squad of Gnats (or 2, whatever makes the hangar full I mean).

(Already mentioned it a few posts earlier).

[TheExecuter]

I'm of the opinion that the fighters best strengths are their speed and the DISPERSAL of the 'alpha strike' into many separate platforms.

I'd much rather have the capability to get my alpha strike package INTO POSITION to launch than have to wait for my slow alpha strike package to get into position.

IMO, the extra speed begets extra tactical flexibility with respect to when and where you attack (position, timing, ease of reloads) that far outweighs the marginal increase in strike weight that going with heavier fighters entails.

So, to sum-up...I am firmly in the pro-gnat camp.

[TheLoneGunman]

Not if the action takes place within 50 m-km of our AWACS Command Cruisers. However, I personally am leaning towards my suggestion of treating this as a leaning experience, and carrying a mix of all three types. I assume that TheLoneGunman is offering to carry Gnats.

The ESN Vesuvius will gladly carry a full compliment of Gnats.

[Amadeus]

I'm of the opinion that the fighters best strengths are their speed and the DISPERSAL of the 'alpha strike' into many separate platforms.

I'd much rather have the capability to get my alpha strike package INTO POSITION to launch than have to wait for my slow alpha strike package to get into position.

IMO, the extra speed begets extra tactical flexibility with respect to when and where you attack (position, timing, ease of reloads) that far outweighs the marginal increase in strike weight that going with heavier fighters entails.

So, to sum-up...I am firmly in the pro-gnat camp.

Very good point !

[blue emu]

It's true that in the first battle, even if we had gotten all 60 of our Fighters safely into firing position, our alpha-strike would have been 180 missiles in 60 separate salvos, while if we carry all-gnats, our alpha-strike would be 120 missiles in 120 separate salvos. Not a lot of difference, considering the higher survivability of a 9400 kps platform vs our original 3800 kps platform.

Perhaps the best idea would be to let the six Carrier Captains and two Task Force Commanders vote on it? That's how we would settle on our tactics in real life, no?

I assume that TheLoneGunman votes "Gnats only".

Konstantin Shepardovski, Cromelex, Marius Balle, PolarMongoose II, and Nabobalis also get to vote... as do Edzako and Autonomous (the Task Force commanders).

[dublish]

Dublish was a Fighter pilot... so it was likely a training accident.

The lives of our Fighter pilots are nasty, brutish and short. Which is quite a coincidence, since so are most of the pilots themselves.

Want a new character? Same job, or a different one?

Dublish II reporting for duty with the fighter corps, sir!

[Cromelex]

I'm strongly in favour of the Gnats...

I'd say 4 carriers with Gnats, and 2 carriers with heavier fighters. I believe it's better to have a mix for now, so we can test and assess the results.