Fighters vs Patrol craft

FOG3 · Post by **FOG3** » 2005-09-28 08:25pm

This has probably been done many times before, but I couldn't refine my search to find any, and I think the closest thing to it was a while ago. In AotC we see a patrol craft ergo the Slave-1 basically making Obi-wan's live very difficult in his mini-fighter.

Small Patrol craft like this can also likely carry heavier weapons, and go farther due to having crew accomidations. They also have a greater degree of autonomy from a port or mother ship. They however may not be able to exploit opennings in capital ship shields or avoid fire in quite the same way.

So what are people's take on which would be better to favor (ie not exclusively A or B, but more emphasis on A or B) in a SW military? Ultimately this is in many ways the older Skiprays vs TIEs issue.

jareth1138 · Post by **jareth1138** » 2005-09-28 09:01pm

I feel that it really depends on the mission. If you are battling in big battles with large capital ships and swarms of fighters then I would put a bigger emphasis on fighters due to their smaller size allows them to have a smaller chance of being destroyed then compared to a larger patrol craft, while still being able to deliver some heavy fire power, though no where near the level of a partol craft. (I think)
If the mission is a border patrol or a escort mission then I would take patrol craft because this is what their designed for. Fighters while faster don't carry the resources of the bigger patrol craft like fuel and life support, they can't operate on their own as well. The patrol craft has heavier weapons because its bigger and was meant for skirmishes.( I have no evidence but this is my personal opinion).
Size would be an issue because large capital ships can carry larger amounts of smaller fighters into battle while they could carry a smaller number of patrol craft (if possible -thinking corvette from homeworld size) having bigger guns but also presenting a bigger target.
Finally I think the function of each is different enough that comparing the two is not really a choice of which is better- Fighter are made to kill fighter and sometimes attack capital ships. Patrol craft are built for long range patrols and small battles and hopefully kill fighter as shown by Slave-1's effectiveness on Obi-wans little ship. (though Obi-wan wasnt fighting in the fighter more then he was following)

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-09-29 03:50am

Both have their uses for the military. Patrol craft offer better functionality, but their larger size and presumably higher costs are prohibitive in the military. Fighters are better designed to support capital ships, when their short-range is not a disadvantage next to the patrol craft but their better maneuverability and lower costs, combined with similar payload represents a better decision. In the end, it depends on what you need in your craft. The fighter would seem to be the better bargain, except for militaries that need to enhance their range without the budget to purchase capital ships. In short, the patrol craft function precisely as advertised.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-09-29 04:35am

How resilient are patrol craft to fighter-grade blaster cannons and missile weapons? If patrol craft are considerably tougher, then they might be worth using even in short-range engagements.

Admittedly, in a battle involving capital ships, I'd think that high acceleration and rotation rates would be the key to survival, since capital ships have gun batteries with weapons big enough to vaporize even the toughest small ship.

In conclusion, I'd say patrol craft would be better when neither your forces, nor the expected opposition, has significant numbers of capital ships. That way, your long-ranged patrol craft can comfortably perform long-range operations and project more firepower.
If both sides have large numbers of capital ships, slower patrol craft would get shredded by capital ship point-defense weapons. Fighters would be the way to go when it comes to small craft, for purposes of exploiting downed shields and for taking out other small craft.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-09-29 05:13am

How resilient are patrol craft to fighter-grade blaster cannons and missile weapons? If patrol craft are considerably tougher, then they might be worth using even in short-range engagements.

Well the 2 Han solo trilogy book (Nal Hutta) has an imperial sector fleet attack Nar Shadaa and features a few smuggler ship against patrol crafts (Although smugglers ships are'nt really fighters, they're usually in the middle), and the Shields on the patrol craft were much better than those of any comparable Smuggler ships (Including a hutt Yacht with a form of turbolasers) and most of the smugglers kills were due to "tricks" (camouflaged rear cannon's, surprise etc..." or heavy torpedoes.

The problem is that capital ship grade weapons generally turn fighters into ash with one solid shot, a patrol craft might be able to resist a shot or two but couldn't dodge the sheer quantity of the bolts and the smaller amount of targets would allow the cap ship gunners to focuse much more easily.
In other words a patrol craft may be better than a fighter or two, but a torpedo equalizes this and they would be much less effective against heavy weaponry as well as being less effective in terms of the weaponry that can be cheaply mounted.

FOG3 · Post by **FOG3** » 2005-09-29 10:40am

DEATH wrote:The problem is that capital ship grade weapons generally turn fighters into ash with one solid shot, a patrol craft might be able to resist a shot or two but couldn't dodge the sheer quantity of the bolts and the smaller amount of targets would allow the cap ship gunners to focuse much more easily.

Not to be asinine, but we do have examples of light freighters (Millenium Falcon, Ebon Hawk) doing exactly this kind of dodging when they're basically the sole target and when leading starfighters (DSII assault). Patrol craft should tend to be better then something that was really designed to haul cargo in that department.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-09-29 11:02am

Millenium Falcon, Ebon Hawk

You mean the fastest ship in the galaxy or a one person (+ droid) ship owned by the galaxys best merc in a ship that was able to hang neck to neck with the falcon in many categories?

Thats a real good example,

, why not use the 2 x-wings can disable a cap ships shields example from "The phantom affair"?

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2005-09-29 01:32pm

In "Truce at Bakura" I think it is mentioned that the REbels (maybe Luke says this? "could use the Falcon in a sweep" versus the enteched droid fighters of the Ssi Ruuk.

A patrol craft uses more crewmen also. So I think it would be up to a commander whether or not they wanted one full armed patrol craft versus its equivalent cost in fighters and crew.

Example of my crazy train of thought: If a patrol craft takes three to pilot it, costs three times as much as a fighter, but has three times the power, would you still take it over three one man snubfighters? In some situations yes, others maybe not. *shrugs*

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2005-09-29 01:43pm

Its possible that the three starfighters might have the ability to takle out the patrol craft by postioning themselves such that as it attacks one the other two can fly into a position where the Patrol craft can't hit back. you may lose one of the fighter, possibly two it the first dies too quickly, but the patrol ship will most likely die.

So in the end the real concern is the mission you want the ship to perform. scouting and patrol while semi autonamous the patrol ship is probably better as it has the interior space tou have a reserve crew aboard so it can rotate the crews for a longer deployment.

For close in battles its a toss up. What is the mission and what are your targets intended to be. in this case the fighter win out as they best fit most opf the missions

FOG3 · Post by **FOG3** » 2005-09-29 02:17pm

DEATH wrote:
Millenium Falcon, Ebon Hawk
You mean the fastest ship in the galaxy or a one person (+ droid) ship owned by the galaxys best merc in a ship that was able to hang neck to neck with the falcon in many categories?

paraphrased from ANH:
Luke: They're [Star Destroyers] gaining. I thought you said this thing was fast.
Han: Shut up kid or you're going to find yourself flying home.

Not to mention the Falcon's not really designed to fight, but to run until it sees lines.

Since when has the Ebon Hawk been owned by a merc that we've seen, let alone the best merc? If you mean who Revan stole it from, that was Davik the Exchange Crime Boss, not Calo Nord. How were you thinking Calo Nord got off Taris if that was the case, wings? Plus Davik used it for smuggling not bounty-hunting.

In any case the referred to incident was fleeing Peragus, when the Ebon Hawk had been just barely put back together by mining droids after being practically destroyed, only to have a Republic cruiser do the same number on it Jango was doing on Obi (both in terms of volume of fire and targetting). Atton doesn't exactly have Super-Ace credentials, and given the shape that ship was in I doubt the expensive custom modifications relating to the seriously damaged engines were working that well if they hadn't been flat out destroyed. Not to mention running on sub-standard fuel that is explicitly said to play havoc with engines.

Given that kind of damage, and the Falcon was being pursued by at least 3 Star Destroyers and 4 TIES on its rear at one point in ESB it I dare say it is relevant.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-09-29 02:27pm

Sorry, I was thinknig of the ship flown by Dash Rendar in Shadows of the empire

.
Also it has been stated that the Falcon has military grade tuned up shields back-up shields, Stardestroyer hull armour and is nearly fighter fast, with turbolaser turrets, it can fight and do it well. (Although it was still sent running by a large imperial patrol craft when Han dumped the spice).

Also refresh my poor memory, how many shots did the Hawk (A famous enough ship owned and modified to be the getaway ship of a planetary famous crime lord) take from the gunney shots? Because I remmember roughly half a dozen fighter shots destroying the ship in the turret mini-game.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2005-09-29 04:20pm

Don't try to make sense of the KotR games. It're really best just to consider the whole thing apocryphal and move on.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2005-09-29 04:53pm

Example of my crazy train of thought: If a patrol craft takes three to pilot it, costs three times as much as a fighter, but has three times the power, would you still take it over three one man snubfighters? In some situations yes, others maybe not. *shrugs*

I wouldn't, because the three fighters can take on three different targets at once, are a lot harder to kill with a big gun, and cover each other.

Take four Jango clones, put three in TIE Fighters and one in Slave I, and sic the TIEs on the bigger ship. My money's on the TIEs, to be honest. Slave I trains its forward arsenal on one and drops a seismic charge behind it, taking out one, maybe two eventually, but it is screwed when a TIE gets behind it firng and just rides it till it's dead. They are that much more maneuverable.

The Millennium Falcon can take four TIEs (barely), but it's modified to such an extent so that it's maneuverable enough to actually dodge their shots, tough enough to take direct hits from a Star Destroyer, and is packing two heavy lasers that between them cover all surfaces of the ship. I don't really consider it a baseline for patrol craft. Plus, I'm sure it's not only more expensive than four TIEs, but requires more room to store in a capital ship than they would.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-09-29 06:08pm

The Millennium Falcon can take four TIEs (barely), but it's modified to such an extent so that it's maneuverable enough to actually dodge their shots, tough enough to take direct hits from a Star Destroyer, and is packing two heavy lasers that between them cover all surfaces of the ship. I don't really consider it a baseline for patrol craft. Plus, I'm sure it's not only more expensive than four TIEs, but requires more room to store in a capital ship than they would.

Why do you think that the Slave One is any slower or less manuverable than the MF? Fett's ship is hardly base line, and while it may not be as fast in hyperspace, its certainly more heavily armed. From onscreen evidence, their manuverablity seems quite compareable (the asteroid chase scenes show fairly equivelent feats.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-09-29 07:25pm

Anyone who's trying to suggest that the patrol ship is more cost-effective across the board is nuts. Guys, the patrol ship has to have capabilities that a starfighter does not need to have (ie. range, living areas, etc.). Those things are expensive. It also has to have larger engines and more powerful shields to get the same performance, which are also going to be expensive. I have no doubt that high-performance, highly modified ships like the Outrider, Falcon, Otana, Slave-1, Ebon Hawk, Hound's Tooth, and Mist Hunter are going to outperform most, if not all, starfighters in combat but they're also going to be orders of magnitude more expensive. They're better for people who cannot afford to run a capital ship, but if you've got enough capital ships to cover your range then the patrol ships are going to be redundant and not cost-effective.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2005-09-30 01:08am

Why do you think that the Slave One is any slower or less manuverable than the MF?

I don't, but it doesn't have 360-degree fire arcs. It also has a much larger cross-section, a disadvantage in any sort of combat.