Speaking of fighters, one thing that I got to wondering with the
aforementioned Fleet Tactics module is what fighter turn around time should
be? If one presupposes a 5 turns of ship scale to 1 turn of Fleet Scale, how
long would you expect fighter groups to be turned around from recovery?
Does anyone have any preferences thoughts on slightly larger than fighter
sized craft that aren't ships (move like fighters, cost like
fighters, yet are around 2-3 mass vs 1 mass). I'm thinking this is
where the Maritime Strike bombers and SWACs type craft make more sense.
Especially from the standpoint of a small Sensor fit on a remote craft. Also,
what about jammer packages for fighter types
that are dedicated (ala EF111/EA-6s).
Context is what I'm looking for in a system for setting up ship battles.
G'day,
> Does anyone have any preferences thoughts on slightly larger than
I would like to see these "large fighters/very small ships" included,
but then I'd like to see them handled in FT too. Bombers and sensor/ecm
platforms would be the main things I'd like to see.
Cheers
Beth, Bombers as in planetary attack craft? Or heavy anti-ship craft?
My favorite dream large craft was an anti-fighter gunboat; the
discussion of fighters' immunity to ships fire except in attack reminded me
how much it sounded like a good idea once upon a time.
The_Beast
> At 12:48 PM +1100 2/3/04, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
Well, I see little issue with a basic idea of small fighter sized craft used
for scenarios. Slower than fighters, they could represent ships boats,
launches, gigs, shuttle pods and more military craft like Sensor platforms.
I figure a mass 2 craft makes sense for a Sensor craft that's larger than your
typical fighter and is able to carry large (for it's size) sensors. Points
cost for enhanced or superior sensors, supposition that they have the same
kind of range as the ships. We've increased the useful range of the sensors
for the purpose of the Fleet game such that scans are able to see the exterior
of the ship with some basic detail. We have a chart for such.
Its been ages since I've been able to play FT with anybody (I've got to find
some players here in the Boston, MA area.. any takers?), but I thought I'd
throw out some suggestions on how fighters could possibly be improved. Odds
are the old hands on the list have kicked them around before, but I've been
way out of the loop and lurking for a while now, so I probably missed it. So
here they are in no particular order.
Firstly, its not just the fighter points cost that we should be looking at.
Its also the ships that carry them. Dedicated carrier craft should be more
expensive than something that just has a fighter bay tucked in here and there
like most of the FB style DNs have. For this expense, you get the ability to
launch and recover faster (fighter control systems in place of or in addition
to fire control systems to simulate fighter command systems, or somesuch,
maybe?). CVs could also have armament restrictions based on their mass, since
for the most part, their main guns would BE their strikegroups. However, you
would still want the option for arming and armoring some designs heavy for the
assault CV role if you want to spend
the money/pay the points for them. You could also seperate the
launch/recovery system and make it a seperate system for each squadron
to be carried. That gives you another system that can be lost on threshold
roles, and also allows you to design less than optimum fighter platforms
(merchant hulled conversions and such) that have some flavor to them. It would
add more time and more recordkeeping, which could definately have an adverse
effect on gameplay. But it might force players to keep their strike groups to
something resembling sane just to avoid being lynched by the other players for
taking to long, so that might work out okay. =)
I think the points cost for the fightergroups is possibly skewed, espeically
once you start tacking on points to make them multirole (Fast Heavy
Interceptors, anybody?). One way around this would be to limit the number of
roles you can have in a given fighter squadron, or to have
some sort of points system in place for a modular or omni-fighter.
Point defense systems could also stand to be updated a bit, but I'm honestly
not sure how best to do this. They could possibly have some sort of a bonus
(or penalty) that takes into account the sensor suite
and ECM/ECCM systems of the ship that mount them.
Most of the stuff I listed has the potential to really gum up gameplay, so I'm
conflicted implementing it. If I ever get a chance to game sometime soonish,
I'll have to test a few of the ideas out.
Anyway, thats all I have for now.
--Theron Hatfield
> --- drowmage@gothpoodle.com wrote:
Somewhere in dark recesses of the archives of the list is found a discussion
of the 'superfighter', see if you can find it, it was enjoyable.
Bye for now,
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 08:36:44AM +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Depends on how your physics work - but a missile to blow up a planetary
installation doesn't usually need to worry about the target manoeuvreing, for
example, so it can carry a bigger warhead rather than a more sophisticated
seeker.
Similarly, since most FT spacecraft don't enter atmosphere, a craft designed
to take them out won't devote all that mass and design compromise to
streamlining...
R
Yes and no. Current jets like the F-18 come in two slightly different
versions, one for ground attack, one for air-superiority. ALthough an
F-18 can carry something like 14,000 lbs of ordinance, it pales in
comparison to the 50,000 lbs that a B-52 can carry over 4 times the
range. In addition, the F-18 is limited to 2000 lbs bombs, wheras the
B-52 can carry up larger ones.
The question would then be, can anti-ship craft enter the atmosphere
with no appreciable loss in performance?
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
Sure, I get your meaning, but what works well in atmosphere might not as
efficiently for strictly 'space'. If you want it to be good at both, you
think I'll argue? ;->=
The_Beast
owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU wrote on 02/03/2004 03:36:44 PM:
> G'day,
> At 2:48 PM -0700 2/3/04, B Lin wrote:
And the BUFF crew can go to the head!
> The question would then be, can anti-ship craft
I've always assumed that the aerospace fighters that were used in DS were
either generic or attack fighters from FT. It doesn't do to not have
atmosphere capable fighters when you're supporting Dirtside combat ops.
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:48:04 +1100 <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> writes:
There you approach an "Air Force" model of space combat?
Gracias,
> At 6:41 PM -0600 2/6/04, <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
The navy has big aircraft too (P3s). Land based ones and shipboard based ones.
The Navy's Nuke
bombers (A3D / B-66 skywarrior) were pretty good
sized compared to other aircraft they had at the time.
Then there is the Russian navy's mode with very large Bear Bombers.