Well, not the argument that's being argued at the moment...
I just have some 'niggles' about hanger costs and relative fighter
costs...
Ok, Take a standard fighter group, costs 18 points. To carry it requires a
hanger, 9 MASS and 27 points.
The hanger has a points cost 50% greater than the fighter group it holds (not
counting the MASS it takes up)
- but what use is the hanger without the fighters?
I think I'd like to see the cost distribution between the hanger & the
fighter groups re-distributed, say, reduce hanger cost to 9 points (1
per MASS), and add +18 points to the cost of a fighter group, - so if I
choose to take a ship (say a BDN), and leave its hanger empty, I'm not
penalising myself that much?
Likewise, perhaps the cost of a small craft hanger bays could be reduced
in a similar manner - or does this all open yet another huge can of
worms?
On a related subject - I'm not sure about the relative costs of the
different fighter types (multirole, interceptor, fast, attack, etc.) either...
What I'd like to see, were it at all possible, is a 'fighter design system'
(possibly similar to Jared Noble's system, with a few extensions), allowing
the design of fighters with a range of speeds, resilliancies and weapons
capabilities, possibly including rules for 'small' fighter missiles. I'd also
like some design rules for 'small craft' bridging the gap between fighters (<=
1 MASS) and scoutships
(MASS 6+) and allowing the design of shuttlecraft etc. I've had some
ideas on this subject, but I have difficulties getting them to work.
From: "Charles Taylor" <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>
> Ok, Take a standard fighter group, costs 18 points.
For those who havn't found this, I've listed the 'actual cost' to bring
fighters on the board:
http://home.woh.rr.com/cfaunce/page12.html
I agree with moving some/all of the hanger cost onto the fighters
themselves. This also helps balance out hangers that carry things like troop
transports which have no actual combat influence (and should then have no
cost) but are carried for scenario objectives (i.e. needing to get X
transports ground-side)
Chan Faunce
[quoted original message omitted]
From: Chan Faunce cfaunce@woh.rr.com
> For those who havn't found this, I've listed the 'actual cost' to bring
As a couple other for-instances:
Mass 15, 2 hull, MD2, FTL, 1 hanger =54 points + fighters = 72/1 = 72
Mass 258, 26 hull. MD2, FTL, 20 hangers= 954 + fighters = 1314/20= 65.7
> At 12:39 PM -0400 5/9/02, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
Hey it's a fighter transporter/lighter....
> Mass 258, 26 hull. MD2, FTL, 20 hangers= 954 + fighters = 1314/20= 65.7
Not that much cheaper. Now. Make a carrier that can either defend itself or
can run faster than your typical SDN or BB. (ie Thrust 5 or
6)
> Mass 258, 26 hull. MD2, FTL, 20 hangers= 954 + fighters = 1314/20= 65.7
Ryan said
> Not that much cheaper. Now. Make a carrier that can either defend
Identical ship with Thrust 5 + extra hull to keep at 10% = TMF 328, NPV
1164 + ftrs = 1524/20=76.2
In one of my own ship-to-ship systems (homebrew spaceship game),
to build fighers and other small spacecraft, I just used the ship construction
rules, and scaled up the fighters. (ie: a heavy fighter would use escort or
frigate stats) And then I added stats for the various fighter components:
Cockpits, sensors, ect.
When the fighter is done, just scale the cost/size back down again...
Seemed to work pretty well.
Donald Hosford
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> Well, not the argument that's being argued at the moment...