On Friday, February 01, 2002 10:25 AM, Charles Taylor
> [SMTP:nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk] wrote:
It would be simpler to just pay a surcharge of +1 point for each extra
ability beyond the first in addition to the cost of that ability.
eg: Fast Interceptors are 5 points = 3 (base) + 1 (fast) + 0
(Interceptor) +
1 (surcharge)
Heavy Attack are 7 pts = 3 (base) + 2 (Heavy) + 1 (Attack) + 1
(surcharge)
Fast Heavy Long Range Attack Torpedo Fighters are 15 each = 3 (base) +
1+2+1+1+3 (abilities) + 4 (surcharge for 4 extra abilities).
Quite a few people have been costing aces at +6 per squadron (maximum 1
per 3 squadrons) and turkeys don't get a discount, but there must be one
turkey per 3 Ace squadrons. So for every 10 squadrons you get; 3 Aces, 6
Normal and 1 Turkey. Note that some fighter types benefit more from aces than
others, but that applies in RL as well.
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 11:48:56AM +1100, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
Do you think this is steep enough? I'd be inclined to add 1 point for
the second ability, 2 for the third, and so on; so the dual-ability
fighters would cost as your examples, but the FHLAT would cost
3+1+2+1+1+3 + 1+2+3+4 = 21. Given that you _can't_ have a ship that does
everything well, I think a fighter that does everything well will be pretty
uneconomic too.
> Quite a few people have been costing aces at +6 per squadron (maximum 1
Per fleet, I assume?
I'm not using aces/turkeys until either I find a copy of MT or the rules
get revised. I'd certainly like to see them costed - but then, I feel
the same way about civilian crews.
> On Friday, February 01, 2002 7:02 PM, Roger Burton West wrote:
Multi-roleing too many functions is self defeating in itself. The
cumulative cost would certainly be a greater incentive to keep your fighters
specialized, instead of having the one Uberfighter type. In campaigns, I don't
like paying for more than 5 per fighter anyway, as equipping a whole carrier
can cost more than building it's destroyer escort (especially with the
attrition rate of fighters).