It's even more difficult to hit and run if the carrier is retreating because attack craft aren't affected by firing arcs. In order to engage the raider must follow the carrier making the approach for a hit take longer and thus open to counterattack.
A carrier can also continually perform evasive maneuvers, making the ballistic checks that much harder.
SableWyvern said:
You are mistakenly assuming that the carrier can only deploy a single wing.
Turn 1: Deploy Alpha Wing (3 bomber sqn, 1 fighter sqn).
Turn 4: Deploy Beta Wing (3 bomber sqn, 1 fighter sqn).
Turn 5: Alpha Wing is returning to refuel. Beta wing is 12 - 20 VU out at this point, depending on the carrier's movement.
Turn 7: Deploy Gamma Wing (3 bomber sqn, 1 fighter sqn).
Turn 8: Alpha Wing lands back on carrier.
Turn 9. Beta Wing is returning to refuel. Alpha Wing is launching. Gamma Wing is 12 - 20 VU out.
That's a constant rotation, with attack wings consistently covering the raider's engagement zone. It may be possible for a very cleverly piloted raider to make an unopposed attack, but it sure isn't going to be easy. And even if the raider does manage to take a shot without opening itself up for a bombing run, it still has to concern itself with return fire from a prow, dorsal and broadside weapon mount.
This example, of course, assumes a carrier dedicated to effective bombing operations, but that seems fair when comparing it to a raider dedicated to long range, high mobility operations. A carrier giving over more space to other craft could, however, manage much the same pattern, simply using smaller wings -- two bomber squadrons per wing should be enough to win a slow attrition battle with a raider.
A true, dedicated carrier with four launch bays will be practically impossible to attack without a retaliatory bombing run unless piloted very poorly.
OTOH, a light cruiser, with it's reduced launch bay strength and limited macroweaponry is far more likely to find itself in trouble without escorts.
Regarding the carrier in my playtest combat, it had four bomber squadrons, two fighter squadrons, one support craft squadron and a ground assault (vulture/valkyrie) squadron. The latter two did not come into play. The carrier itself was only moving farily slowly, and the bombers were never more than two turns of full movement away.
This effectively mimics how attack craft worked in all but v1.0 of Battlefleet Gothic, as you are effectively only providing one wing with C3 links at a time, which was the stated reason that in Battlefleet Gothic you could only have a number of squadrons equal to the combined launch strength of the fleet on the table at any one time. In BfK, of course, you can launch that many attack craft squadrons each turn if you want to, until you have no more left in the bays.
SableWyvern said:
A ship armed with sunsears, hecutors and turbo-batteries is likely to be cruiser or larger, and will probably find it difficult to outpace bombers. If the ship is fast enough to do so, it's probably also capable of giving any ship with shorter-ranged weaponry a hard time.
That ship does not have an Explorator Magos aboard i must presume. (Read: Rank1 Explorator character with a mind for Tech-Use)
OTOH a cruiser has close to 1/3 of its volume devoted to engines. I do not know how that ratio is for bombers. Aerodynamics are unimportant, and i must say, the flank speed order does make a good proof of that.
Its Imperial technology, the machine spirit must be correctly placated to perform at its best, so actual speed is dependent on the Engineseer Prime and not on the apparently nearly always idling engine.