I think there was a discussion of this last year, but...
What about the idea of launch tubes like Battlestar Galactica, which
would allow the rapid deployment of large numbers of fighters - say 2
mass per 6 fighters, so a carrier could opt for 6 sets of launch tubes to fire
off all it's fighters in one turn, but only have 2 bays to recover them, plus
whatever is required for storing 6 sets of fighters. (or perhaps fighters can
be stored in tubes?) Turn around time would be increased due to the extra
effort to load a fighter into a tube.
Plus the tube might be equipped with a catapult which could be simulated by
giving the fighters an extra 6" on their first move from the carrier.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
Try using:
Each Launch Bay: 12mass (accounts for doors/corridors to hangers)
Each Hanger: 6 mass Each hanger must be attached to a launch bay or another
hanger
(daisy-chained). It takes 1 turn to move fighters from a hanger to a
launch bay or another hanger. Done at the beginning of the fighter launch
sequence (so cannot move one up if there is a fighter in the launch bay).
Launch bay may hold 1 fighter unit by itself.
Unbalancing (getting fighters at reduced mass) in games where fighters can
start pre-launched or have multiple turns before engaging enemy ships.
Or you could have 1 Op Deck for all fighters (would make them more vulnerable
to threshold checks) and multiple launch bays. But the same
problem exists -- games where fighters are launched at the start.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
Cygnus X1.info
http://www.cygnusx1.info/
---
[quoted original message omitted]
Some ideas:
You can sort of balance this by varying the starting distance of the fleets.
Before the game, each side decides on their starting velocity.
They then compare the sensor/ECM numbers to determine a modifier. The
higher side gets to add or subtract the difference from the range in turns and
is considered the "attacker". Then both sides roll 2d6, subtract the lower
number from the higher, add or subtract the attacker's modifer and the
difference is the range in turns at the attackers starting velocity (minimum
range of 36 units). This would give reason to beef up sensors, ECM and allow
for the possibility that your carriers might be engaged before being able to
launch fighters.
Some assumptions: If the attacker chooses a high velocity, it is more likely
to picked up further away, so if you choose to have a high starting velocity
to defeat fighters, the more likely the opposing fleet is going to pick you up
at a distance and have time to launch fighters. Conversely if you pick a
slower velocity, the fighters will have enough speed to engage you, but you
might catch them in their launch bays.
Really one should play with all aspects of the game - sensors, ECM,
supply and logistics, strategic replacement and such to truly balance
the game. As is often the case, small, limited-use battles will
highlight a tactical advantage of a particular tactic or system that may or
may not be viable in the larger scheme of things.
For instance, if you look at the B-2 bomber, it's a remarkable piece of
equuipment and highly capable of penetrating into enemy airspace and
delivering a payload. If you only gamed the section where the B-2 drops
it's PGM, it's practically unbeatable. When you look at the overall picture of
procurement cost, vulnerability to the elements and basing requirements, it's
not such a good buy. You have to be wary of people who insist on constantly
including certain systems and excluding others, they may have an ulterior
motive in removing the best defense against their chosen weapon system.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----