Fighters - Rearming and Launching (longish)

Full Thrust Purist Beware:).

We came up with the following system for rearming fighters. Mind you we've
never had the fighters, carrier, and enemy survive long enough to need to try
this out though.

Each fighter bay on the ship produces comes with one deck crew. Deck crews are
assigned to fighter groups being reloaded in the same manner as damage control
parties. Each deck crew rolls one die and if a six is scored, the fighters
squadron is ready to launch next turn. Fighter squadrons of the same type may
be combined during rearming and no squadron with less than four fighters may
be launched. Ace or Turkey effects from the squadrons reing
reorganized carry over (it is possible to have an Ace/Turkey squadron
this
way).

Re Launch Tubes and Hangar Bays I would like to see a system such as this
since it would eliminate the a lot of problems at once. The carrier
definintion would not be needed. It's a carrier if you call it a carrier, just
some of them may be better than others. The biggest problem is that the
current system penalizes large fleet
carriers.  Fleet carriers (say mass 90+ with six squadrons) must hold
course and heading for three turns in order to get their squadrons launched.
On the other hand, If you put you six squadrons into 3 mass 40 escort
cruisers, you can launch all of them in one turn.
I think I'll work on this with the idea of one launch bay/two suadrons
being the average (in terms of keeping the mass and cost close to the
orignal). Therefore two standard fighter groups plus hanger bays plus one
launch system should be Mass 12 and cost 40 points.

Something Like This Hanger Bay
Mass:  4       Cost:  4
Big open space to store and repair fighters. One required per fighter
squadron.

Launch Bay Mass: 4 Cost: 12 Space and Machinery to launch and recover
fighters. Each Hanger bay may launch or recover on fighter group each turn.

Launch Tubes Mass: 2 Cost: 10 Specialized rapid launch system for ready
fighters. Each set of tubes carries all of the fighters of one squadron in
launch racks ready to go. Just scramble the pilots and punch 'em out. Each
tube is connected to one hanger bay and may only launch the fighters from that
bay. Launch tubes may not be reloaded during combat and are not able to
recover any fighters.

Fighter squadrons Base cost for a standard fighter squadron is 10 pts, plus
hangers, launchers, etc. Advanced fighters add their usual amount to this base
cost.

Using this system, the light fleet carriers have the exact same capabilities
as before (i.e. carry four squadrons, launch 2 per turn) with the same mass
dedicated to fighters. Sample Heavy Fleet Carrier Mass 100 Thrust 2 FTL

Screens: 2 PDAF: 4
3-arc C Battery:  2
Individual ECM: 1 Hanger Bays: 6 Launch Bays: 2 Launch Tubes: 2 6 fighter
squadrons.

This ship can launch 4 squadrons on turn one, and the remaining two on turn 2.
I'd carry fast interceptors in the launch tubes, long range fighters ready for
launch on turn one, and then push out my heavy attack fighters on turn two.

Sample Escort Carrier Mass 40 Thrust 4 FTL Screens: 1 PDAF: 3 Hanger Bays: 2
Launch Bay Launch Tubes

This ship can still launch both of its squadrons right away, but had to use
two more mass than a conventional escort carrier to get the capapbility.

For one shot games, there is nothing to stop players from optimising their
carriers for rapid release and slow recovery (i.e. lots of launch tubes and
only one launch bay). I don't see such a big deal here,since every other ship
is optimized for the single combat as well. Carriers have by and large faired
very poorly in our games. They are big sitting targets on predictable courses
and are viewed as sort of trophy kills. In a campaign setting, launch tubes
might be restricted (easy to envision some sort of penalty for FTL jumps with
fighters in the launch tubes) so ships that are suprised, etc might be at a
real disadvantage if they don't have conventional launch bays to get their
fighters away. Also ships which took on fighters from another ship could use
those fighters from a launch bay, but launch tubes are configured only for the
exact type of fighter originally instaled on a
ship.....

Comments accepted and appreciated.

Brian

> On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 BJCantwell@aol.com wrote:

> Full Thrust Purist Beware :).

This is a good idea. It is easy to modify also. If you want fighters to
be able to re-arm a little faster just use 5+.  You can also use this to
show crew quality (veteran deck crews can reload faster, etc).

> Re Launch Tubes and Hangar Bays
It's a
> carrier if you call it a carrier, just some of them may be better than
On the
> other hand, If you put you six squadrons into 3 mass 40 escort

Now this is a really good system. I like this a lot and will use it in our
campaign (the NAC need something). One thing it might add is that you will see
launch bays possibly being damaged by Threshold checks, then the
damage repair crews trying to repair them in time to land fighters -
adds more of a carrier operation feel.

Did you consider the systems increased risk to threshold checks when balancing
it out? Perhaps a lower point cost or mass for some of the systems.

> Comments accepted and appreciated.

Good job!

In a message dated 96-12-13 14:50:48 EST, you write:

> Now this is a really good system. I like this a lot and will use it

Thanks, glad you liked it, the effects of launch bay damage could be
especially devastating in a campaign game, where unrepaired launch bays would
force you to abandon valuable fighters. This could really cramp a carrier with
lots of launch tubes and only one launch bay, especially if you have some sort
of system like in my FMA rules, where a 1 rolled on the damage control check
means that the system is too badly damaged to be repaired outside of the
shipyard.

> Did you consider the systems increased risk to threshold checks when

I've found that increased risk of loss due to threshold checks just is not
much of a balancing factor. It's too random. Sometimes you loses the whole
boat, sometimes you don't get touched. This makes for great gameplay, but mass
and cost (in that order) are the best balancing factors.

My thoughts anyway

Later

Brian

> Brian Cantwell wrote:

> Fighter squadrons

Nice system. I would prefer something that could be added to the existing
rules rather than replace them. By corrupting your ideas, how about:

Launch Bay: Standard FT Fighter Bay. All ships that carry Fighters MUST have
at least one Launch Bay. There may be a maximum of 2 of these on a ship. A 2nd
Launch Bay may be placed on a ship ONLY if the total tons of

Launch Bays, Hanger Bays, or Launch Tubes is 1/2 or greater of the
allowed system tonnage.

Hanger Bay
Mass:  4       Cost:  Equivilant Fighter Bay cost -5
Big open space to store and repair fighters. Holds 1 Fighter Group. Hanger
Bays may NOT launch or recover Fighters. Hanger Bays are connected to all
Launch Bays.

Launch Tubes Mass: 3 Cost: 5 Specialized rapid launch system for ready
fighters. Each set of tubes carries all of the fighters of one squadron in
launch racks ready to go.

Just scramble the pilots and punch 'em out. Each tube is connected to one
hanger bay and may only launch the fighters from that bay. Launch tubes may
not be reloaded during combat and are not able to recover any fighters.
However, Fighters may be launched from Launch Bays while the ship is
maneuvering.

Launch Bays, Hanger Bays, and Launch Tubes may only be mounted on Capital
class ships. If a hanger Bay or a set of Launch Tubes are damaged the fighter
group may not launch (the pilots are in the hanger bay until the

launch order) until it is repaired.

This would encorporate the existing Fighter rules (including tons & cost) and
expand capability. Cost would be the same as for existing ships with

Fighters. Tonnage would cost 1 more for the Fighters that would have to have
waited to launch. Alternatly, ship could be designed for less, but Fighters
would have to wait to launch.