Topic: SFC Carrier / Fleet tactics

[elkhartgreg]

Maybe it's from watching too much "Tora!Tora!Tora!" and "Midway" this weekend but I got curious and couldn't find any threads/discussions about carrier ship or fleet tactics for the SFC games.  I realize that the fleet portion is due in-part to mast people's tendency to go for the largest single ship possible rather than several ships but there really seems to be a rather huge void here.  Has anyone played with/posted anywhere about carrier &/or fleet groupings (either several or 1 with other class ships) or how to best utilize fighters?

[Roychipoqua_Mace]

I would love to see more on this too!

I mainly play the standard multiplayer skirmish games where the best single ship for the points is usually what people go for, like you said. It would be awesome if SFC1/2/OP had better fleet controls, but it's tough unless you have a very simple squadron (like 3 R-WB+ or 3 Z-DF). The best luck I've had having a "fleet" feeling has been flying a 3v3 (6 players total, each player controls one ship), especially when all of the players are serious and communicate well. In these kind of matches, it can be fun to have each side be all of one race, like Feds vs. Klinks. It's also a lot of fun to have different sized ships in the match (like 1 Command Cruiser flown with 2 accompanying War/Light Cruisers).

I don't have much experience with fighters, but the site below has some good Hydran stuff with a fighter section. I still have to read this particular part, and this article is for SFC1, but most of it should be pretty good. A few discussions here and on other tactics pages talk about the debate of when to send your fighters in -- do you (as the big carrier ship) soak up the damage from the enemy and let the fighters fly in unopposed, or do you let the fighters take the damage so you can get a free hit? It's probably something that always depends upon the pilot and the situation. Another weird thing about fighters is that when used against an enemy in "defend" mode, they will tend to hold their fire until they are point blank with the target (which can be dangerous if they destroyed before they fire, but it also sucks to see your fighters fire fusion beams at range 10).

A final thing to think about with fighters/carriers is that fighters are a huge part of the BPV of your ship. If you have a command cruiser with fighters, an even match will mean that your enemy has a heavy command cruiser, especially if you buy better fighters in the spacedock). Fortunately, this only matters if you are playing in BPV-balanced games, and not as much in campaigns.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030203141145/http://www.ericchung.com/golden112.htm

Oh, and here's a good link too: http://xenocorp.net/Fleets_Guilds/Starfleet_Command/hydran_fighters.htm

[762_XC]

Carriers as AI wingmen don't work well, at least not in even BPV battles. The AI will launch its fighters and send them on a suicide run at first opportunity.

As for carrier tactics in general, the most important concept is to treat your fighters as an adjunct of your ship, and never let them get isolated. Independent strikes almost never work - there are exceptions to the rule, but that is the general rule. Forget about Midway and the Coral Sea. Too much of your BPV and firepower are invested in your ship to use such tactics and expect to win.

If your fighters get mauled, your ship should be in position to take advantage of the opponent whose guns are now empty. If your ship gets mauled, your fighters should be in a position to do the same. Either path can lead to victory.

Aside from that, the second most important thing to remember is not to get tractored when you have fighters in the bay. Mapping a "launch all fighters" key is extremely useful (there is none by default). Knowing when to launch is important. Ideally you want to catch your opponent when his PD is at least partly depleted, but you also have to do it 8 impulses in advance because of the arming delay on fighters.

[Lieutenant_Q]

Honestly, Carriers are at the end of their usefulness as we know it.  The biggest reason Carriers were so devastating in the Second World War, and the Cold War was that the Carrier could operate far enough away from the battle, that the fighters were the only extension of it engaged, and the enemy didn't know where your base was.  The advent of cruise missiles and satellites have made an impact on Carrier battles.  With satellites you know constantly where the other Carrier is, and two cruise missiles can cripple a Nimitz class Carrier, while two cruise missiles aren't a threat at the moment because the missiles are so slow, you can see the incremental increase in Missile speeds, in the near future they will become too fast for point defense to handle effectively.  Once combat moves to space, Carriers will be well past their prime, and emphasis will be on Cruisers and Destroyers.

In SFC when I fly a Carrier, I keep a very close eye on the fighters.  Because the UI doesn't differentiate between the different fighters, I make sure that I have the same type of fighters on board.  I know what their ordinance is (you may have to check the fighterlist file in the program folder), and once they deplete all their ordinance, I will recall them to re-arm and re-load.  I never make them fly with just their phaser (unless that's all they launch with in the first place), because unless its a Phaser 2, the fighter never seems to fire it at the best time.  (range 14 phaser 3 volleys?)  The same thing usually goes for AI controlled ships, they fire when they can fire, regardless of range.  Now I know that one of the fixes that they want to do to EAW is to give the AI a little more intelligence as to when it fires, perhaps we'll see fleets return at that point.

[elkhartgreg]

Independent strikes almost never work - there are exceptions to the rule, but that is the general rule. Forget about Midway and the Coral Sea.

Don't forget that the US had to go solo carriers most of the time by necessity, not by choice.  Ironically, Midway & Coral Sea featured carrier groups and not "independent strikes". 

[knightstorm]

Honestly, Carriers are at the end of their usefulness as we know it.  The biggest reason Carriers were so devastating in the Second World War, and the Cold War was that the Carrier could operate far enough away from the battle, that the fighters were the only extension of it engaged, and the enemy didn't know where your base was.  The advent of cruise missiles and satellites have made an impact on Carrier battles.  With satellites you know constantly where the other Carrier is, and two cruise missiles can cripple a Nimitz class Carrier, while two cruise missiles aren't a threat at the moment because the missiles are so slow, you can see the incremental increase in Missile speeds, in the near future they will become too fast for point defense to handle effectively.  Once combat moves to space, Carriers will be well past their prime, and emphasis will be on Cruisers and Destroyers.

Carriers will retain their usefulness for many years to come.  As long as the US is engaged in military operations over seas, we'll need the advantages of a mobile airbase.  As for your cruise missile argument, its easy to say that 2 missiles can cripple a Nimiz, its a lot harder to get those 2 missiles through the defenses of the ships aircraft and escorts.  Also, the Gerald R. Ford class will incorporate stealth features for a smaller radar profile for further protection.

[762_XC]

Independent strikes almost never work - there are exceptions to the rule, but that is the general rule. Forget about Midway and the Coral Sea.

Don't forget that the US had to go solo carriers most of the time by necessity, not by choice.  Ironically, Midway & Coral Sea featured carrier groups and not "independent strikes".

By "independent strike" I mean a strike by the airwing itself without any offensive support from the carrier/escorts. That is exactly what happened in those two battles.

The sole function of the group is to protect the carrier, whose sole function is to support the airwing. In a WW2 carrier group, all offense comes from the airwing, no matter how many escorts the carrier(s) have. Battleship escorts were in fact employed in carrier groups primarily for their AAW ability.

In SFC the carrier itself is carrying a lot of your offense, which as a general rule you cannot afford not to use. Hence the analogy, which is intended to contrast the two.

[knightstorm]

Independent strikes almost never work - there are exceptions to the rule, but that is the general rule. Forget about Midway and the Coral Sea.

Don't forget that the US had to go solo carriers most of the time by necessity, not by choice.  Ironically, Midway & Coral Sea featured carrier groups and not "independent strikes".

By "independent strike" I mean a strike by the airwing itself without any offensive support from the carrier/escorts. That is exactly what happened in those two battles.

The sole function of the group is to protect the carrier, whose sole function is to support the airwing. In a WW2 carrier group, all offense comes from the airwing, no matter how many escorts the carrier(s) have. Battleship escorts were in fact employed in carrier groups primarily for their AAW ability.

In SFC the carrier itself is carrying a lot of your offense, which as a general rule you cannot afford not to use. Hence the analogy, which is intended to contrast the two.

What he's saying about the US going carriers by necessity rather than choice is the fact that US military planners initially envisioned carriers as supporting the battleships rather than the other way around.  However, the Pearl Harbor attack took a significant portion of the US battleline out of service, and forced them to rely more heavily on the carriers than they otherwise would have.  By the time the battleline recovered, the carrier airstrikes had proven their effectiveness and became the central part of fleet operations.  As for SFB being different, that has to do with the fact that there are fewer limitations on what can be put on SFB ships then there were in real life.  The only carriers to have guns larger than 5 inches were the Lexington class which had 8 inch batteries (the largest allowed by treaty).  I think I remember reading about the concussion from the guns damaging the flight deck and/or parked aircraft, but don't quote me on that.  Another factor would be the ease with which a carrier can be mission killed.  Put a few holes in its flight deck and it can't operate its air wing.  Either way, In SFB, there seems to be less of a limitation concerning what can be put on a carrier without reducing its ability to operate an air wing.

[marstone]

my main tactic with SFC fighters is to send them on minor independent attacks, set to harass so they stay at range and not close to point blank.  i watch them so when HW are fired I call them back to reload and repair.  on a convoy raid, I send the fighters into the freighters and take on the escort ships with the carrier.

[Age]

my main tactic with SFC fighters is to send them on minor independent attacks, set to harass so they stay at range and not close to point blank.  i watch them so when HW are fired I call them back to reload and repair.  on a convoy raid, I send the fighters into the freighters and take on the escort ships with the carrier.

I do this to but those with Caveat 3s can just attack or any ISC late or advanced fighters and need nerfing.It should be the Hydrans to have the better fighters not the ISC.