> Mike Elliott wrote:
> >>How many fighters can be launched/recovered in a turn?
Um... yes. And I think the old answer still applies: "A carrier is any
ship with more than 50% (or 66%, whatever you like) of its non-hull,
non-engine Mass used for fighter bays; other fighter-carrying ships are
not carriers (and therefore only able to launch 1 squadron per turn". I'm not
sure about armour, though.
Using the "more than 50%" rule, counting armour into the Mass of which the
fighter bays must use up more than 50%, the only FB "carrier" designs that
doesn't quite make it are the NSL von Tegetthoff (not surprising, considering
the description!) and somewhat more embarrassing the ESU Konstantin class.
This doesn't change if armour counts as hull (ie, not as part of the Mass used
for determining carrier status).
If screens are counted into the "hull, engines etc", the Konstantin too
becomes a carrier.
So, all in all, I'd use the definition:
"If more than 50% of the Mass not used for hull, engines, armour or screens is
devoted to fighter bays, the ship is a Carrier (and thus able to launch 2
fighter squadrons at a time)."
On a second thought, I'd prefer to drop the carrier/non-carrier
distinction entirely and add in launch bays from EFSB - with the
difference that each launch bay can only launch one single fighter group per
turn, and a ship can have more than one. Not sure about what Mass it should
have, though... and of course it'll make the FB designs incorrect
:-/
Later,
oerjan.ohlson@nacka.mail.telia.com on 06/01/98 07:34:38 AM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Control Systems, was Carrier Status
> Mike Elliott wrote:
<SNIP>
> So, all in all, I'd use the definition:
I've never even read the EFSB rules, but I still think the most elegant
solution to this was posted by Brian Cantwell back in April '97 - and
that
was to make a new system - 'Flight Control' <my name-he called it launch
control>. Same mass and cost as fire control. You could replace your
'free' firecons with flightcons - so your capital sized cruiser may have
drastically reduced firecon (maybe only 1) and 2 flightcon - which seems
reasonable considering the fact that most carriers are weak on the offense
anyway, and *DAF (their main 'weapons') needed no firecon.
As I have done some thinking, I expanded this idea - I'm sure I nicked
the ideas of others, as well, but it seems to me that there are 4 useful
'control' systems - all the same mass, capabilities and (perhaps) cost.
-
1) FireCon - the standard we all know and love
2) FlightCon - Any ship with fighters (or landing craft) may launch
OR recover 1 group per turn (and I would have restrictions on
the carrier's allowed actions that turn - only half-thrust or
something like that). With FlightCon you have no carrier move restrictions and
2 simultaneous activities. Each additional FlightCon provides 2 more
simultaneous activities (maybe only 1) So really big carriers can do a lot at
once (by sacrificing mass for FlightCon)
<Brian's rules were a bit different - each Launch control
allowed 1 extra launch per turn, and a ship could land half
that many (round down) - I don't distinguish which activties
can be performed, only how many>
3) FleetCon (or Flag) - Here we start into fleet coordination. I
haven't worked out the specifics, but I'm thinking about
bringing chain-of-command and morale type rules to FT - ships
with FleetCon enable a small squadron to share targets with
a bonus - A squadron is the flagship +1 ship per flag in the
group. All ships may share data,engaging at the range of the closest ship in
the group. No real ideas on the morale structure, but flag should weigh
heavily. Maybe Flagships could activate other ships out of Sequence? (I'll
activate my Flagship, then use it to activate my heavy
cruiser using my flag abilities - 2 ships in a row -)
Note: I'm not thinking DSII style 're-activation' here - And
Flag cannot replace 'free' firecons - Extra installation only!
4) New ADS control system from Fleet Book - I have absolutely no
idea how this works in replacing *DAF, but from the posts I've read it seems
to be a control system. Can anyone enlighten me?
So, what do you think? (puts on flame-retardant clothing)
> 2) FlightCon - Any ship with fighters (or landing craft) may launch
I like this idea (although I haven't seen the FB yet; still, the principle
sounds good.) My vote would be that each FlightCon allows 2
launch/recovery
actions. Enhances the reasons for making a dedicated fighter-carrying
vehicle.
> 3) FleetCon (or Flag) - Here we start into fleet coordination. I
Hmm... interesting. More than's probably needed in pickup games, but for a big
scenario or campaign game, this would be choice. Gets us back into the 'Are
morale rules necessary?' again, but I tend to think it would add a worthwhile
dimension.
(OK, I admit it, I finally picked up an Honor Harrington book... first thing I
thought was, this is like Full Thrust with morale and communication
rules...)
> So, what do you think? (puts on flame-retardant clothing)
No need to be defensive! This is just the sort of thing this list was designed
for, ne? Good post!
> At 10:59 1/06/98 -0900, you wrote:
> As I have done some thinking, I expanded this idea - I'm sure I nicked
-
> 1) FireCon - the standard we all know and love
Must say I do like the above idea. Under the new design rules you are better
able to design carriers carrying more than 6 groups but such ships are
hampered by the time it takes to get all the groups out. Personnaly I'd stick
with Brian's ("Welease Bwian!", opps sorry, Monty Python flashback) idea of
increasing launches by 1 and recoverys by half)
> 3) FleetCon (or Flag) - Here we start into fleet coordination. I
The fleet book has optional "Core" systems which represent bridge, life
support and basically a reactor (called engineering IIRC as some @#@$% friend
has borrowed my FB) which come as standard. What you're talking about here is
basically the bridge from the Core systems only much more vulernable as there
are special rules regarding Core systems. Both Bridge and your Fleetcon would
work well with Schoon's "Crew Qaulity and
Experience" rules posted on 12-5-98.
> 4) New ADS control system from Fleet Book - I have absolutely no
The new ADS replaces the old ADAF. It uses the same symbol but allows all
the PDS mounted on a ship to target any fighters/missiles attacking
another ship within 6". PDS are normally only able to shoot at fighters and
missiles attacking the ship that they are mounted on.
> So, what do you think? (puts on flame-retardant clothing)
Are we that bad?
twilko@ozemail.com.au on 06/02/98 04:29:01 AM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Re: Carrier status, was Re: More Fleet Book questions
> At 10:59 1/06/98 -0900, you wrote:
<Snip>
> 1) FireCon - the standard we all know and love
In retrospect, I agree. Recovery operations seem more involved by their
very nature-so limiting them to half does seem reasonable. So it could
be reworded that FlightCons "allow a ship to launch 2 groups or recover 1
group every turn for each", to quote from Kelvin Henderson's reply (I'm
consolidating replies.) Score another one for Brian.
> 3) FleetCon (or Flag) - Here we start into fleet coordination. I
I have GOT to get my hands on a Fleet Book! What does this bridge involve?
(without reposting all of Jon's hard work). I looked at Schoon's post to
refresh my memory, and while it does touch somewhat on what I have thought
about, not really. I'm thinking more on the lines of Formation Flying. A group
of ships flying in formation, which satisfies certain requirements (say
squadron coherency) and is linked through the Fleet Control system gains
special benefits. If one ship in the squadron has it's drive damaged, the
whole squadron must adjust their behavior or the wounded must drop out. While
in squadron, the ships could perhaps share their tactical defense net (maybe
similar benefits as ADS, but only within the squadron) and share targeting
information, etc. Presence of the Flag also has a benefit to Morale. The fact
of Fleet Withdrawl and individual ship surrender I feel is relatively
important. I see the individual crew quality issue and even the difference of
captain leadership ability to be a separate (but worthy of development) piece
of the puzzle. Right now fleets seem to be a collection of individual ships
that do their stuff in the same
general area - I would like to see cohesive unit actions. Or to get
new-agey, SYNERGY!
> 4) New ADS control system from Fleet Book - I have absolutely no
So is ADS only the PDS upgrade, or is it also a PDS? In other words, if I have
an ADS but no PDS, do I still have any defense?
> So, what do you think? (puts on flame-retardant clothing)
In a message dated 98-06-02 19:06:08 EDT, you write:
> In retrospect, I agree. Recovery operations seem more involved by
When I came up with the idea of the Launch Cons I was suprised that I or
anyone else had never thought of it before. I also like keeping recovery to
half of launches since it is always a more complicated business, especially
with guys coming in damaged, straggling from their group, and other real life
drama not seen on the FT scale.
Glad to see people using the ideas...
Brian
> Jared E. Noble wrote:
> So is ADS only the PDS upgrade, or is it also a PDS? In other words,
The ADFC (not ADS) is an upgrade (Area Defence Fire Control). If you only
have the ADFC but no PDS you have no missile/fighter defences, just like
you don't have any firepower if you have only FireCons but no weapons
:-)
Later,
> At 15:00 2/06/98 -0900, you wrote:
A
> group of ships flying in formation, which satisfies certain
Love to give you the whole details but some "friend" has borrowed mt copy and
will have for at least another week. IIRC the bridge did not affect play that
much as given in FB but as I say I don't have the book in front of me.
> So is ADS only the PDS upgrade, or is it also a PDS? In other words, if
My reading is NO. ADF acts as a fire control, not a weapon.
> So, what do you think? (puts on flame-retardant clothing)