> favored since I dislike the carrier versions of the FSE (why
Just picked up on this comment, especially since I have just finished painting
3 new carriers by brigade minatures all flat tops:) I like em and in my
opinion no one has justified other means for handling fighters on space
vessels. All very well launching out of tubes but what about landing? In
Battlestar Galactica the fighters launched out of tubes, but for landing they
used a big open deck, albeit a covered over one.
Oh and as an aside anyone else notice in the film Starship Troopers that the
second fleet action had the fighters on flat sections of the ships?
I like flat tops:)
> jeremy claridge wrote:
> > favored since I dislike the carrier versions of the FSE (why
Good... (sorry they took so long!)
> and in my opinion no one has justified other means for handling
Yep - it appeared to be a slightly different variant of ship.
> I like flat tops :)
Ditto (why else would we make 'em!?).
I don't know about anyone else, but there's a discrepancy here (and in other
places in FT) about what I believe a future space war fought in vacuum will be
like and what I
would prefer it to be like - but I'm
prepared to live with this. In truth, I don't believe space fighters will
exist at all in the near future, but I like my games to feature them because
they're fun. If they were to exist, they certainly won't be launched from flat
top carriers (more likely from launch bays open to space a la Babylon 5), but
I prefer the look of an open flight deck and prefer to depict them that way.
Some of the other concepts in FT and other games are similarly not valid from
a scientific viewpoint, but we can quietly put that aside because the game is
fun! I think this is something we must be careful not to lose sight of.
I guess it comes down to how much you're willing to put aside your scientific
views in favour of your sense of gaming fun!
> Tony Francis wrote:
> I don't know about anyone else, but there's a discrepancy here (and in
I always assumed that the fighters on the GZG ships WERE launched from tubes
or bays. Some sort of aperture can be seen on all the GZG minis that I've
seen. I also assumed that, where present, the flight decks served as some sort
of artificial gravity generator that helped the fighters to land and may even
aid them to acheive combat speed upon launch. Besides, like you, I think they
look great.
-Mike
***
In truth, I don't believe space fighters will exist at all in the near future,
***
Thanks, Tony! I'd meant to mention this, also. Never cared for them in SFB,
though you'll have to pry the TFG Fed carrier model out of my cold, dead hands
if
you want it. ;->=
I think Jon has stated that fighters are included to allow playing certain
cinematic universes. We've already mentioned BG, and Star Wars the same. And
fine reason for me.
I'll have carriers eventually, even FB ones, and fly fighters, but have
nagging doubts as to their really fitting.
The_Beast
> > Just picked up on this comment, especially since I have just
Ha ha didn't know you were on this list:) In that case only one little
suggestion.... Can you put measurements by some of the ships. Thought I was
getting a Normal Carrier and 2 escort carriers. instead I now have a Fleet
carrier and 2 Normal carriers! Just as well I ordered lots of fighters:)
> In truth, I don't believe space fighters will exist at all in the near
I disagree. As I have said before like any war it will come down to cost. If a
space fighter armed with some heavy weaponry is one 10th the cost of a medium
classed ship then they will exist.
> they certainly won't be launched from flat top carriers (more likely
Maybe not launched but for landing I believe it to be quite a valid option.
And I have never seen the fighters in B5 land back in the station? Anyone got
an episode where they show the fighters getting back into the launch bays?
[snipped stuff]
> they certainly won't be launched from flat top carriers (more likely
AFAIK, they land in the main docking port at the front of the "ball", just
like any other incoming ship, and are then conveyed internally back to the
Cobra Bays. Oh, and just in case anyone wants the [OFFICIAL] line on the
carriers-with-flight-decks question, then yes, it IS just 'cos they look
cool, OK? If you like flattops, play NAC or FSE - if not, then use ESU
or
NAC!!
<grin>
> Maybe not launched but for landing I believe it to be quite a valid
There IS one episode where you see the fighters returning to the Cobra Bays
and for the life of me I can't remember the name of it. As Jon T. has already
said they enter the station via the main docking entrance, then they dock with
the same launch rails they are spat out from and lowered back down to the
bays.
> At 01:44 PM 6/23/99 +0100, you wrote:
My scratch-built fleets all include flat spots for recovering fighters.
I make no excuses. For me, they make an easy identification of the carriers,
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> Thanks, Tony! I'd meant to mention this, also. Never
> At 15:15 23/06/99 +0100, you wrote:
I believe you'll find thats its "A Vioce in the Wilderness, part 1" a few
scenes before we learn that Ivanova is GOD.
Wilko.
> jeremy claridge
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
Nice models!
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
Actually, it's for 2 reasons:
1) They came that way - they're samples of formica from kitchen
renovators. 2) They fit nicely onto guideposts in the transportation box, so
you're
almost right - it's a way of stopping them slopping around in the car on
the way to the next Convention.
I have always felt that the range of possible future technologies (those
that apply to fighters/operations)
allows a very wide range of carrier designs. It's just a matter of how the
technologies are implemented. (This follows my own philosophy of allowing
players to imagine their ships any way they wish, and then designing my games
to allow it.)
I've always felt partial to the gamilon/comet empire carriers from
Starblazers.
Donald Hosford
> jeremy claridge wrote:
> > favored since I dislike the carrier versions of the FSE (why