In attempt to better reflect how carriers and their escorts work in combat the following optional system for attacking carriers is presented.
If a carrier group is the target of a Directed Damage attack the attacker can decide to forgo the normal CEDS system and try and punch through the escorts to the carrier.
If punching through the escorts to directly attack the carrier two things happen:
A. The carrier automatically is considered to have the formation bonus, maulers do not get their bonus to directed damage in this circumstance (they retain it if using CEDS).
The carrier fleet gets to make their Directed Damage attack with the attack factors of the escorts combining together and allowing 1:1 directed damage (similar to a mauler, but no shock). Ad-hoc escorts do NOT count for the 1:1 directed damage.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:28 am: Edit

So you are saying you can kill the escorts at 1:1 and the carrier at 3:1?

So a Kzinti CV+MEC+FKE.....I can kill the CV for 45 and a mauler cannot be used, and the Kzinti can use 6+4=10 points of damage at 1:1 against the enemy?

Why doesn't the carrier's compot get added to the 1:1 damage bonus?

By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:41 am: Edit

I think the suggestion is that the escorts get to use their attack factors like a mauler because as you close to medium range and direct at the carrier the escorts, someway in front of the carrier, fire back at point blank. But the carrier is still at some distance.

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 12:45 pm: Edit

Yakface-
That is exactly what I am suggesting.
My original idea was more involved and had a few extra wrinkles involving the escorts, but I boiled it down to its essential. I figure if the core idea is considered worthwhile then extra wrinkles and tweaks can be added, and if the core idea is a rotten apple core no point in wasting the extra bandwidth for the wrinkles.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Escorts are usualy with the ship they are escorting, so if you are at point blank to the escort, you are point blank to the carrier.

This whole idea is tactical though, and really does not enter into the strategic level of F&E.

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit

I always considered that escorts were out a few hexes, enough to change the range category of weapons a bit and to have time to shoot down seeking weapons targetted on the carrier.

Tactical, I suppose so, but aren't many things tactical including maulers and the current CEDS system.

This is just an attempt to come up with a better model for engaging carriers to better reflect the SFB realities but without making it too complicated or involved and without breaking the game in either direction.

By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Where it may come apart is when the carriers are engaged with a SB. 45 to kill a Zin CV or 36 for a D7V is easy done even without a mauler. Late war even 54 for a CVA won't be too hard.

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 03:57 pm: Edit

I don't see that as a problem, carriers should die over starbases that are backed by fleets if that is what the defender wants to target.

I should add that the 1:1 directed damage attack of the escorts can not be used against an opposing ship that has the formation bonus. Either that or drop the mauler restriction.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:20 pm: Edit

How is a SB going to close with a carrier group to try to punch through for an attack?

Limit the Escort Mauler effect to the AF of the largest escort +1 for each additional escort in the group. Also restrict the escort mauler effect from attacking any ships with formation bonus. This helps keep the escorts from becoming too powerful. If you let a carrier group use the AF of all of its escorts you'd have the Lyrna 20 point escort mauler effect killing anything it wanted too at 1 to 1 (CWA+CWA+DWA). People all ready complain that the Lyran escorts are too powerful.

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit

(well I see that the ESGs are working again).....that is why that system was builded for fighters and drone defend....that is how the Lyran ecorts are builded for.... and this idea I think it can work .....F&E is the son of SFB....and I feel this is missing in some part of F&E....the Father (SFB)is missing and need to be added

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:28 pm: Edit

What?

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:34 am: Edit

hmm, this could work for larger carriers, but it would make small carriers impossible to use. think about the FFV class of carriers for an extreme case, they only take 18 to kill and probably only have a single escort with a relativly low AF so the return mauler effect will be minor

Daniel, the SB fires it's P-4's it doesn't need to get that close ;)

the answer to this may be that small carriers should be cheaper, but hopefully some other fix can be found rather then tinkering with costs

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 08:33 am: Edit

Daniel good idea to change it to AF of largest escort +1 for each additional escort (Ad-Hoc escorts still not counting).

DLang not too worried about the small carriers, they really aren't all that hard to kill now and there are usually better targets anyway.