WarShips vs. ASF - optimal weapons layout?

[Gorgon]

As I'm slowly working my way into Aero rules, I'm currently trying to understand how best to utilize capital weapons against ASF.

How I understand it (using Capital Fighter and Fighter Squadron rules from SO):

• To quickly disperse enemy fighters, I would want to create as many critical hits and destruction checks as possible.
• The most heavily armored ASF I could find (Hydaspes) has a Fatal Threshold of 11, most other flying bricks don't get more than a 9.
• Naval laser in AAA mode and Barracudas generally work best at hitting small craft without loosing firepower.
• Bracketing only gets better at hitting the target when using 4+ guns and applying the -3 to-hit bonus, costing you 60% of your damage

To me, it therefore follows:

• More numerous NL bays of 2 lasers are preferable to a smaller number of larger bays (say, 2 NL-45 for reaching the 9 damage Fatal Threshold or 2 NL-55 to take it up to 11). This generates more chances to hit, reduces overkill and thus allows for a better chance of taking out more fighters per combat round.
• Barracudas are a good way to thin out enemy squadrons before they even reach gun range. These are probably mounted in single-launcher bays, to hit and generate crits against more individual fighters?

So I guess my questions to all of you who are more experienced in all things Aero:

• Is my understanding of the rules correct?
• Is using capital weapons against fighters worthwhile over larger numbers of fighter-scale weapons? The answer here is probably using a mix to make best use of the capital range bracket and the better damage to weight ratio of fighter-scale weapons.
• Ultimately, is an SL-style all-big-guns WarShip feasible, if it were to mount NLs in appropriate small and numerous bays for air defense?

[Lagrange]

   

• Is my understanding of the rules correct?

Yes, but there are two corner cases you may want to consider.
Screen launchers (capital short range) do AE damage in a space hex, which could be quite deadly to ASF squadrons.
ELRMs are standard scale weapons with capital-long ranges.

   

• Is using capital weapons against fighters worthwhile over larger numbers of fighter-scale weapons? The answer here is probably using a mix to make best use of the capital range bracket and the better damage to weight ratio of fighter-scale weapons.

In most cases, no with the standard rules.  The screen launcher could be an exception in massed use.

   

• Ultimately, is an SL-style all-big-guns WarShip feasible, if it were to mount NLs in appropriate small and numerous bays for air defense?

Usually no.  A very fast warship (5/8 or faster) could keep distance and pick off heavy ASF with NLs though.  Even then, a sane designer will have at least some AMS defense.

[AlphaMirage]

Three things to also consider

1. Velocity is the biggest problem Warships have with Aerospace Fighters. If your Warship is slow the Aerospace Fighters will be approaching hot and fast so you will only get two or three shots against them and they are not easy to hit thus bracketing or AAA mode are key. If you are on the other hand fast you can basically gas out fighters with external ordnance onboard so you only have the worry about their standard weapons not Alamos or Anti-Shipping Missiles. (Check out my 31st Century Fleet Admiral's Guide linked in my sig or the Fleet Design Doctrine I developed in Fan Designs)

2. To-Hit Mods are high, lots of standard weapons could cripple Aerospace Fighters so my preference is to actually have Ultra 20s, Gauss Rifles, and PPCs with each arc. Having at least 100-140 standard in each arc could wipe out an incoming fighters and seriously damage Assault Ships. Unfortunately this also means that you failed to intercept or gas out the fighters since they got so close.

3. Assault Ships are actually deadlier than most fighters because they can mount Sub-Caps that can generate thresholds against a Warship. Even the most powerful Fighter is nowhere close to what a well-designed Assault Ship can deliver and they are very susceptible to destruction by Capital Weapons like Lasers. The inverse is also true, your escorting Assault Ships should be intercepting, disrupting, and destroying incoming fighters before they reach your Warship. This is the way I typically build out my Fleets as it is a versatile tool.

[Gorgon]

So in your experience its better for warships to rely on smaller weapons and organic fighter and dropship support for ASF defense. Reserve the big guns for big targets?

[AlphaMirage]

Yes, particularly pocket warships with lots of Piranha and Barracuda missiles (plus AMS). Stick a few of these in front in order to extend the intercept further gasing out fighters since they will have to remain evasive for longer costing them more fuel and closing velocity. This increases the critical mass of incoming fighters necessary to hurt the Warship as this line should be in range of capital lasers and the Warships own interceptor missiles.

[monbvol]

With the addition of the Sub Capital weapons I would say there is some value in using in particular the SCL-1.  Long Capital Range, can use AA mode for a +1 total modifier instead ot +3 for the full scale Naval Lasers and they are light weight and heat efficient enough that they for all practical purposes obsolete NL-35s even when accounting for Fire Control tonnage and Heat Sinks.

[Hellraiser]

Its a bit cheesy & you never see it used in canon, but, the way Bay Limits & Arcs work you can come up with some well designed Anti-Fighter defenses while still packing CapGuns for the big boys.

The "Corner" Bays give you some of your largest arcs of fire.
The Nose & Aft bays only have a single row of hexes that isn't covered by the "Corner" bays.
The Broadsides are 100% overlapped by the 2 "Corner" Bays.

To me, when I'm designing a ship, I tend to follow a basic set of rules (size will cause some variation)

Sample:
Nose/Aft =  2 Cap Weapons  (2-HNPPC),  12 Standard Weapons  (Because I like the crew member/6 guns to look nice & even),  6 AMS
Corner Bays =  8 Cap Weapons,   12 Standard Weapons    (3-NAC20 + 5-NL55)
Broadside Bays = LOTS OF STANDARD WEAPONS & AMS  (say 78 at 66 Standard + 12 AMS)

With Quint-NLs you can get good Bracket or AAA damage against fighters.
And with 12 Standard Weapons Per Arc & a whopping 78 in the Broadsides you can put some serious hurt on even Hyda squadrons.

[Daryk]

NL/35s were obsoleted by the NL/45 from the get go...

[monbvol]

NL/35s were obsoleted by the NL/45 from the get go...

Not really.  Extreme Capital Range is not much of an advantage and in the case of NL-35 vs NL-45 there was a case for using 35s instead to fill in gaps.

[Daryk]

It is an advantage, but I see your point.

[Gorgon]

Its a bit cheesy & you never see it used in canon, but, the way Bay Limits & Arcs work you can come up with some well designed Anti-Fighter defenses while still packing CapGuns for the big boys.

The "Corner" Bays give you some of your largest arcs of fire.
The Nose & Aft bays only have a single row of hexes that isn't covered by the "Corner" bays.
The Broadsides are 100% overlapped by the 2 "Corner" Bays.

To me, when I'm designing a ship, I tend to follow a basic set of rules (size will cause some variation)

Sample:
Nose/Aft =  2 Cap Weapons  (2-HNPPC),  12 Standard Weapons  (Because I like the crew member/6 guns to look nice & even),  6 AMS
Corner Bays =  8 Cap Weapons,   12 Standard Weapons    (3-NAC20 + 5-NL55)
Broadside Bays = LOTS OF STANDARD WEAPONS & AMS  (say 78 at 66 Standard + 12 AMS)

With Quint-NLs you can get good Bracket or AAA damage against fighters.
And with 12 Standard Weapons Per Arc & a whopping 78 in the Broadsides you can put some serious hurt on even Hyda squadrons.

Interesting notes on the fire arcs. So far I tend to put a more or less even number of standard weapons into the different arcs. Your approach would certainly save on fire control tonnage.

[Hellraiser]

Interesting notes on the fire arcs. So far I tend to put a more or less even number of standard weapons into the different arcs. Your approach would certainly save on fire control tonnage.

It's a compromise between those ships you see where someone just skips Cap Weapons & loads up on 1000 ERPPCs per Arc & your typical canon ship.
I also happen to like it since when you look at a WWII Era BS, you have BIG TURRETS in the Front/Rear that can Swing From Side to Side, but they are not mounted on the actual Sides of the Ship. 
To me, that is best represented by the Corner Bays.
Meanwhile the actual BS area of a WW2 ship is normally small cannons & MGs which work as Standard Scale Weapons.
I often will even mount AR10's in the Nose/Aft as sort of a feel for Subs & various Torpedo Boats that have tubes that face Front/Back but not Sides at all really.

To me, its a solid compromise between being Cheesy & just being Efficient/Optimized. 
And like I said, I like the actual positions in terms of looking at classic Battleships.

[Daryk]

I like the corner arcs for efficiency too... :)

[Hellraiser]

NL/35s were obsoleted by the NL/45 from the get go...

Not really.  Extreme Capital Range is not much of an advantage and in the case of NL-35 vs NL-45 there was a case for using 35s instead to fill in gaps.

It is an advantage, but I see your point.

So I came across this thread again & I was thinking about this.

The same thing can be said for NLPPC v/s NM/NH-PPC

In terms of Heat / Tonnage / Damage / Cost,  I think they all scale linearly essentially. 
I don't have the stats in front of me but I think they do anyway.

The 1 difference really is RANGE.  Which is why we think of them as inferior.  But then I got to thinking.....

I could be wrong about this, but, since Range Effects BV, it would in theory, be an advantage to use NL35 on a design that won't need/use that range bracket

Say for example, a ship loaded w/ NAC35 bays that is designed to get into close quarters but does want some energy weapons so its not entirely ammo dependent.

Perhaps a ship designed to be a "High speed engagement" vessel, IE, a Light/Fast Warship or even something like an alternative to the M5 Caspar.

Basically a ship designed to be a "Hunchback/Urbanmech"  or a Wasp-1W since I mentioned being faster.

The BV v/s Range thing also has me thinking of IS Tech v/s Clan Tech.
Clan = Better but is also more expensive & if you are on a Canyons or Forests map, your not using that range so your over paying.

Space doesn't have those issues but it also has the ability to be moving at speeds that clear multiple maps in 1 turn.

Anyway, just a thought on use of those "Shorter" ranged guns.

[Daryk]

Not a bad argument, but I dislike using BV as a design basis.

[Hellraiser]

I hear you there, but it was more an added reasoning.

The real reason is as I mentioned, "Hunchback",  or "High Speed Pass".

Not every engagement will be a slow approach hanging out at each range bracket for a while, like a pair of NightStars walking forward 3 each turn.

You "Can", make a WS designed to act like an Avenger, with slashing attacks.

I personally wouldn't, but, it is a strategy.

In that case, Extreme won't get used much & it has the added benefit of being "efficient".

Basically why stick ERPPCs on a mech deployed to fight in the city?

I'm actually sort of intrigued at the idea of a WS armed w/ NL35, LNPPC, & NAC35 as primary guns :)     Zoom Zoom, Pew Pew

[Daryk]

There's also the aspect if you use the detailed ranges from StratOps.  Short/Medium/Long ranges being longer helps too.