FB small carrier construction

With the new ship construction rules in FB1, is it still prohibited to base
fighters on hulls smaller than hull size 60. I don't see a mention of this in
the rules unless it's an unwritten assumption, aside from the fact it uses up
lots of valuable space on a small ship.

On  9-Sep-99 at 09:57, Hmmm. Single syllables. A formidable opponent.
(The Tick) (KOCHTE@stsci.edu) wrote: > >With the new ship construction rules
in FB1, is it still prohibited to
> >base fighters on hulls smaller than hull size 60. I don't see a

In our current campaign our maintenance cost is:

(mass*.06)**1.6

microcarriers are a godsend, with big planets producing around 100NPV a turn
one of the big FSE carriers can eat the production of a planet in maintenance.

> With the new ship construction rules in FB1, is it still prohibited to

No restriction exists for where you put hangar bays for FB designed ships.
That, to me, is nice, 'cause I like the occassional dinky carrier design
for light duties.  :)  (of course said ship, if destroyer-sized, ain't
gonna be able to do much else, but that's the price you pay!:)

Mk

> At 10:02 AM 9/9/99 -0400, Roger Books wrote:

Out of curiosity, how did you come up with *those* numbers???

> On 9-Sep-99 at 21:24, Aaron Teske (ateske@HICom.net) wrote:

Let's see.

We wanted to encourage smaller ships, otherwise each side would have a few big
ships. We still wanted big ships possible though, so we set the biggest ship
(the FSE supercarrier) to cost around 100 to maintain, 100 being our chosen
output for an average world on a turn.

One of my gaming group was big on the **1.6 (golden ratio I believe), and the
0.06 kind of fell out from there.

If anyone is interested I could post our current campaign rules and people
could pick them apart. We have added things like a flag bridge and admirals
(an admiral may command a fleet with a certain mass, we do not use fleet
morale UNLESS there is no admiral or the fleet is too big).

I should point out something about our game, mostly we play at work over
lunch, so things were written into our campaign system to attempt to limit the
size of battles. You could easily tweak a few numbers and have much larger
games.

Marc Boisvert asked:

> With the new ship construction rules in FB1, is it still prohibited

No.

(BTW: The old restriction was (implicitly) "smaller than hull size 40"
- that's the size of the "Escort Carrier" in More Thrust :-/ An old
mass of 40 is roughly equivalent to an FB Mass of 80-100.)

> I don't see a mention

Neither the limit nor its removal are explicitly stated anywhere that I can
find, but it should be removed. It is recommended that any ship can launch its
full fighter strength in one single turn, but only recover up to half of them
in one turn.

The general rule about FB is "If FB doesn't say, use the FT2/MT
rule"... but there are several exceptions to this :-(

Best wishes,

> Roger Books wrote:

> Let's see.

I am interested.  (I am allways interested in campain rules...:-)

On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Hmmm. Single syllables. A formidable opponent. (The
> Tick) wrote:

> No restriction exists for where you put hangar bays for FB designed

I see no problem with this what so ever. There are currently carriers that are
not much larger than a smallish cruiser. Look at the Italian and Spanish
navy's ASW carriers.

Great Britain Invincible Class 20,600 Tons. Operates 14 VSTOL aircraft

Centaur Class (Hermes of Falklands fame, now the Indian Viraat) 27,000 Tons,
Operates 26 VSTOL aircraft

Italy Guiseppe Garibaldi VSTOL Carrier 13,850 Tons. Operates 12 VSTOL aircraft

Spain Principe De Asturias VSTOL carrier 16,700 Tons. Operates 17 VSTOL
Aircraft (Harriers or Helos).

If you could fit the necessary self defense fit and hangar bays to a light
cruiser, I see no reason why they wouldn't be used as a light escort for
merchantmen and other weak ships. The economy of scale might bite you, but if
it frees up the bigger light carriers for combat duty, you might be saving
your ass.

> On 13-Sep-99 at 16:03, Ryan M Gill (monty@arcadia.turner.com) wrote:
(The
> Tick) wrote:
:)
> I see no problem with this what so ever. There are currently carriers

I'm not sure about the "can't do much else" either. Try my latest
micro-carrier:

CVM
Hull Displacement     61
Point Cost           214 + fighters
Hull Strength        Weak(3/3/3/3)
Hull Armor 1 Thrust 4 FTL Capable

Fighter Bay (2) Empty Bay
Fire Control System   (1)
SMR FP F AP
Beam / 2      FP F AP
Beam / 1      FP F FS AP A AS
Beam / 1      FP F FS AP A AS
Beam / 1      FP F FS AP A AS
PDS (2)

It is basicly a slow version of my standard heavy destroyer with 2 fighter
squadrons added. It may not be up to standing alone against an escort cruiser,
but add those fighters in and it has a chance. As for those small, light
things people like to slip in behind the big boys to take the carrier, well, a
couple of these can provide a little fight. With a 2 and an SMR (side aimed)
it can even aid the big boys with a few plinks.

> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Roger Books wrote:

> On 13-Sep-99 at 16:03, Ryan M Gill (monty@arcadia.turner.com) wrote:

> I'm not sure about the "can't do much else" either. Try my latest

Well your CVM is more a CVE. but note, you have sacrificed toughness for

some extra punch. Probably not a bad stop gap, but I'd expect it to die pretty
quick in a battle with 12 damage points and a weak hull.

Still it fills a niche that is hard to fill with a cruiser and a CVL.

> At 05:55 PM 9/13/99 -0400, you wrote:

> pretty quick in a battle with 12 damage points and a weak hull.

Most "micro-carriers" are usually not intended to get within spitting
distance of a beam-fight. :)  In fact, if you pattern your carriers in a
manner similar to current modern fleet doctrine, *none* of your carriers are
supposed to be in a ship to ship firefight. They launch and stand off while
the other ships with "real" armaments run to the engagement.

Most of my K'rathri carrier designs are based on this "launch & stand off"
philosophy. What armaments they do have tends to be defensive in nature. I do
have a "Patrol Carrier" that's a cross between a Heavy Cruiser and an Escort
Carrier, but it weighs in at the Dreadnought level.

-------------------------------------
[CVS] Sa'kakh class Scout Carrier
A small "true carrier" designed to accompany Heavy Cruiser groups.

TMV:64, NPV:216(*), Thrust 6, 13 DP, 4 CF 2:Fighter Bay, 3:PDS, S1, A2

-------------------------------------
[CVE] Sa'krekh class Escort Carrier
Designed for use with Battlecruiser groups.

TMV:114, NPV:388(*), Thrust 6, 23 DP, 6 CF
3:Fighter Bay, 1:Class 2 (6-arc), 2:Class 1, 2:FiCon, 4:PDS, S1, A2

-------------------------------------
[CVL] Siv'kathri class Light Fleet Carrier
Designed for use with Battleship/BattleDreadnought groups.

TMV:154, NPV:533(*), Thrust 4, 31 DP, 8 CF
4:Fighter Bay, 2:Class 2 (6-arc), 4:Class 1, 2:FiCon, 6:PDS, S2, A8

-------------------------------------
[CVA] Sri'mekh class Attack Carrier
A "traditional Full Thrust" style of Heavy Fleet Carrier

TMV:274, NPV:928(*), Thrust 4, 82 DP, 14 CF
6:Fighter Bay, 1:PTorp (3-arc, F), 2:Class 3 (3-arc, FP/FS),
2:Class 2 (6-arc), 2:Class 1, 4:FiCon, 6:PDS, S1, A8

-------------------------------------
[CVH] Siv'kartra class Fleet Carrier
A "true Fleet Carrier" not intended for the wall of battle.

TMV:284, NPV:982(*), Thrust 4, 57 DP, 15 CF
8:Fighter Bay, 2:Class 2 (6-arc), 2:Class 2 (3-arc FP/FS),
6:Class 1, 3:FiCon, 8:PDS, S2, A15