FT: Squadron Question

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

1 of our group, wants to build a carrier with, only 3 launch bays, but put 1
to 2 extra squadron in per bay at Mass 6, and use them like "Missile launcher
bay" and rotate them up, so they can launch and be recovered at 1 squadron per
launch bay pre turn.

What are we missing, or is there something else.

Thanks

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 06:54:18PM -0500, Doc wrote:

Not possible under the standard rules. A fighter squadron needs a fighter bay
in order to be deployed in combat.

R

> On 16/02/2013 00:02, Roger Burton West wrote:
PSB justification for saying no: the Mass for the bay is not just the launch
and recovery system, but also the space and equipment for maintenance, storage
when not deployed, accommodation for the crews and
engineers, etc. -- in short, everything needed for a squadron to be
operational that isn't fighter. So, depending upon setting, little to nothing
significant is saved by the reloadable bay concept. You'd need house rules for
separate launch and recovery systems to make the idea work.

Interesting thought, though. You could have simple L&R (open a hangar door and
let the kids out and back in under their own power, or
release/apply external mounting clamps), or various varieties of launch
tube or similar device according to setting, with resulting
benefits/problems for the fighters. In fact, it might be preferable to
separate launch from recovery as many settings do, and allow the
possibility of multiple launch methods -- use a tube or go out the
hatch, with maybe fighter type A doing one and type B doing the other...

and so on.

The above is just the product of a little free association at
oh-far-too-early on a Saturday morning, and I'm sure lots of people have

already got such rules for themselves, but it could be an idea worth looking
at for those who don't; the Mass and point costs should be not too different
from the standard ones, but enought to reflect the good and bad points of
doing it that way.

Phil

> On Saturday 16 Feb 2013 00:02:10 Roger Burton West wrote:

> Not possible under the standard rules. A fighter squadron needs a

I agree with the 'deployed in combat' part. I don't see a problem with it for
just storing fighters, but they won't be in a launchable state.

If he instead wanted to be able to keep spares to replace losses between
battles (useful in a campaign game) then the 6 mass/squadron seems
reasonable.

Expedient 1 shot launches from freighters or launches from static stations
might make for interesting scenarios.

Adding functionality to allow multiple fighter launches and retreuvals from
the same bay would requires retooling the base rules or a "house" rule.

Any thoughts?

Patrick from St Louis, MO

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:

> On Saturday 16 Feb 2013 00:02:10 Roger Burton West wrote:
http://www.google.com/profiles/samuel.penn
> [quoted text omitted]

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

I like the idea of having separate hangars and launch bays. It
actually feels closer to actual present-day carrier operations.  It
may not be in the official rules, but as a house rule, you could assume a
squadron needs 6 Mass hangar space and each launch bay is 3
Mass. You could design your carriers for desired launch/recovery speed
with assault carriers having 1 launch bay per squadron and maybe Escort
carriers having only one launch bay for all fighters. Von: Patrick Connaughton
<ptconn@earthlink.net> An: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
 Cc: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
Betreff: Re: FT: Squadron Question
 Datum: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 02:03:35 +0100

Expedient 1 shot launches from freighters or launches from static stations
might make for interesting scenarios.

Adding functionality to allow multiple fighter launches and retreuvals from
the same bay would requires retooling the base rules or a "house" rule.

Any thoughts?

Patrick from St Louis, MO

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk [1]> wrote:

> On Saturday 16 Feb 2013 00:02:10 Roger Burton West wrote:
http://www.google.com/profiles/samuel.penn [3]
> [quoted text omitted]

Links:

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

If the need were seen as sufficient, I wouldn't be surprised to see
something like a CAM ship (cf. _Empire Darwin_ and later examples).
Recovering the pilot of a "ditched" fighter in space might be more of a
sporting challenge.

Best, Ken

________________________________
 From: Patrick Connaughton <ptconn@earthlink.net>
To: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
Cc: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: FT: Squadron Question

Expedient 1 shot launches from freighters or launches from static stations
might make for interesting scenarios.

Adding functionality to allow multiple fighter launches and retreuvals from
the same bay would requires retooling the base rules or a "house" rule.

Any thoughts?

Patrick from St Louis, MO

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:

> On Saturday 16 Feb 2013 00:02:10 Roger Burton West wrote:
http://www.google.com/profiles/samuel.penn
> [quoted text omitted]

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

It seems quite reasonable to design carriers with a larger hanger capacity
than the launch capability.

most modern aircraft carriers have the ability to store ~50 planes but
the ability to launch only 2-4 at a time.

in FT terms thats 8 squadrons and one launch bay.

So maybe the launch bay is 6 mass and the squadron takes up 3 mass.

Even BSG seemed to have the large flight bays and the capacity to only launch
some squadrons at once. The Cylons didn't seem to have hangers for the raiders
they were attached externally to the hull.

most of the babylon 5 ships seemed to launch squadrons some at a time. Only
the raider ship seemed to be able to launch all fighters at once from external
racks.

________________________________
From: Ken Hall <khall39@yahoo.com>
To: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: FT: Squadron Question

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

If the need were seen as sufficient, I wouldn't be surprised to see
something like a CAM ship (cf. _Empire Darwin_ and later examples).
Recovering the pilot of a "ditched" fighter in space might be more of a
sporting challenge.

Best, Ken

________________________________
From: Patrick Connaughton <ptconn@earthlink.net>
To: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
Cc: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: FT: Squadron Question

Expedient 1 shot launches from freighters or launches from static stations
might make for interesting scenarios.

Adding functionality to allow multiple fighter launches and retreuvals from
the same bay would requires retooling the base rules or a "house" rule.

Any thoughts?

Patrick from St Louis, MO

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:

> On Saturday 16 Feb 2013 00:02:10 Roger Burton West wrote:
http://www.google.com/profiles/samuel.penn
> [quoted text omitted]

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

I suppose that if you really wanted to go with this, you could model the
fighter launch system after Salvo Missiles.

A single launcher can either launch or recover one squadron per turn, and it
has a "magazine" of squadrons.

Priced accordingly (I have no idea off the top of my head what that would be)
it could work fine.

Regards, Schoon

________________________________
 From: "gzg-d-request@firedrake.org" <gzg-d-request@firedrake.org>
To: gzg-d@firedrake.org
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:00 PM
Subject: gzg-d Digest V2013 #14

----- Forwarded Message -----

gzg-d Digest                Volume 2013 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:
  Re: FT: Squadron Question             [ "gitta-chris@t-online.de"
<gitta-ch ]
Re: FT: Squadron Question [ Ken Hall <khall39@yahoo.com>]

I like the idea of having separate hangars and launch bays. It
actually feels closer to actual present-day carrier operations.  It
may not be in the official rules, but as a house rule, you could assume a
squadron needs 6 Mass hangar space and each launch bay is 3
Mass. You could design your carriers for desired launch/recovery speed
with assault carriers having 1 launch bay per squadron and maybe Escort
carriers having only one launch bay for all fighters. Von: Patrick Connaughton
<ptconn@earthlink.net> An: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
Cc: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
Betreff: Re: FT: Squadron Question
Datum: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 02:03:35 +0100

Expedient 1 shot launches from freighters or launches from static stations
might make for interesting scenarios.

Adding functionality to allow multiple fighter launches and retreuvals from
the same bay would requires retooling the base rules or a "house" rule.

Any thoughts?

Patrick from St Louis, MO

How would one estimate costing out the external rack?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:13 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Only the raider ship seemed to be able to launch all fighters at once from
external racks.
> ________________________________
Recovering the pilot of a "ditched" fighter in space might be more of a
sporting challenge.
> Best,
rule.
> Any thoughts?
http://www.google.com/profiles/samuel.penn
> [quoted text omitted]

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

We just had external racks as 6 mass for the squadron, but you can't land and
rearm during the battle.

You might also have a rule for such ships that they must have at least one
internal bay 6 mass for repairs and maintenance of the fighter squadrons.

________________________________
From: Patrick Connaughton <ptconn@earthlink.net>
To: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
Cc: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: FT: Squadron Question

How would one estimate costing out the external rack?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:13 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Only the raider ship seemed to be able to launch all fighters at once from
external racks.
> ________________________________
Recovering the pilot of a "ditched" fighter in space might be more of a
sporting challenge.
> Best,
rule.
> Any thoughts?
http://www.google.com/profiles/samuel.penn
> [quoted text omitted]

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

I have read most of the comments on this topic via the Digest.

And while I agree there needs to be more to his idea, then what he suggested.
At the sametime, he is going to take the hit of not being able to launch and
recover all his fighters at one time.

So how would you all, build a Carrier with the ability to launch or recover 1
squadron at a time, but have 2 or more squadron onboard. and at what cost.

I do agree with John that part of the Bay "The mass of the fighter bay is not
merely the launch doors, but the fuel, ordnance, support crew, etc. necessary
to maintain, arm, launchand recover the fighters. If he needs a "common sense"
reason other than "stop trying to be a cheezy bastard"."

But I also beleive like the player in question, the launch/recovery
function has take up at least part of the Mass of the bay. The question is how
much?

I am looking at the group for Wisdom, don't want to shut him down as this is a
player who rarely has a "idea", but I want to make sure if we allow this we
don't hose other carrier types.

Thanks again

Personally I like the idea of seperate launch/recover system to the
hangar.

I'd house rule a fighter launch bay to 3 mass with 6 mass per hangar myself,
however, I'd also require that fighters take a turn of prep to move from the
hangar to the launch bay or 1 turn from the recovery bay to the hangar.

Compare 6 normal fighter bays take 54 mass, 6 hangars plus 2 launch bay takes
42 mass. So for 54 mass you can launch all 6 fighter groups in one turn. For a
savings of 12 mass you can carry the same number of fighters but can only
launch or recover 2 groups every other round.

> On 21/02/2013 5:30 p.m., Doc wrote:

> Personally I like the idea of seperate launch/recover system to the

Hi all, I've been watching this discussion point with interest - and
please don't take this as an "official" pronouncement on the subject, because
everyone if free to use whatever house rules they are most
happy with - BUT this suggestion is definitely the one I like best so
far.
You can have a "ready squadron" in the launch tubes/bays/whatever,
ready to scramble at short notice - but once they have launched, it
takes a full turn to move another squadron into the vacated launch area, and
that squadron can launch the turn after that. Similarly with recovery, once
the launch area is full it takes a complete turn to clear the landed fighters
back to their storage hangar before the
bay can be re-used to recover another group.
Given that many FT games don't actually stretch over a huge number of turns, I
think this may well give sufficient penalty to ships with
fewer launch bays than hangars to balance out any "cheese factor" -
though of course this will only be proved or disproved by playing, so if
anyone tries it out please let us all know the results here!

Jon (GZG)

> On 21/02/2013 5:30 p.m., Doc wrote:

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

There is historical precedent as well. Early on in the Battle of the North
Atlantic there were merchant ships with single launch catapult aircraft.

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship

Not a warship but it does show that in desperation things will be tried.

I would suggest that the catapult launch fighters would be a real possibility
especially if there was a separate recovery bay that could
recover and re-fit them.

I would add the extra fighter squadrons as cargo bay space and add about
10-15% on that for the equipment needed to move them around after
recovery to make room for the other fighters. This capability is likely to
break the already shaky game balance that results from too many fighters.

Interesting idea and I would encourage it, but make sure that there are
some penalties.  In a one-off battle you don't mind if you leave
fighters strung out out of fuel. In a campaign that is more of a problem. In
the real world of course, you strand them once and forever more they will
launch and remain in close escort to the carrier with "navigation problems".

For actual numbers I would go with 60-70% the cost of a full figher bay
for each additional section (6). (Sidebar squadron to me is a collection of
sections and not just 6 fighters). Most of the room is going to be the ships
themselves but you are going to need additional tugs, cradles, trailers etc to
move them around. Also would go with additional personnel on board the carrier
to do the
moving/refitting/reinstalling.

Reinstalling the fighters on the launchers can only be done outside of combat.
Takes a couple of exterior tugs and some actual time to get
them re-set.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head,

Bob Makowsky

________________________________
 From: Doc <docagren@aol.com>
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: FT: Squadron Question

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

I have read most of the comments on this topic via the Digest.

And while I agree there needs to be more to his idea, then what he suggested.
At the sametime, he is going to take the hit of not being able to launch and
recover all his fighters at one time.

So how would you all, build a Carrier with the ability to launch or recover 1
squadron at a time, but have 2 or more squadron onboard. and at what cost.

I do agree with John that part of the Bay "The mass of the fighter bay is not
merely the launch doors, but the fuel, ordnance, support crew, etc. necessary
to maintain, arm, launchand recover the fighters. If he needs a "common sense"
reason other than "stop trying to be a cheezy bastard"."

But I also beleive like the player in question, the launch/recovery
function has take up at least part of the Mass of the bay. The question is how
much?

I am looking at the group for Wisdom, don't want to shut him down as this is a
player who rarely has a "idea", but I want to make sure if we allow this we
don't hose other carrier types.

Thanks again

Here is the reply I thought too terse; leave it to John to allow me to seem
'measured'. Except for the stupid rhetorical questions...

I certainly thank him for the cost/benefit analysis; I take more of a
'historical(game)/fluff' tack. Does feel a bit weird to be on the same
side of an argument. This too shall pass.

I accept certain WWII naval connections; I reject too close a following
of same. Same as if a game has to cover every movie/TV plot device.

Doug

****
Perennial discussion; why bother with carriers at all, just have
fighters in transports (opening of BSG TOS), and duct-taped to the hulls
of the rest of the ships (Really? New Cylons?). Why pilots, when you can use
AI's that are robust enough to leave in the fighters on the hull (new Cylons),
and save bunk space.

Oh, wait, those are missiles, aren't they? Why bother with any; nanotech will
make them all obsolete! (Yes, yes, I'm a bitter old man remembering bitter old
battles.)

If fighters are interstellar craft, ala X-Wings in SW, they aren't
fighters anymore, are they?

Now, if I can't get a dozen Tie's for the cost of one small starship,
something's cocked. (Balances out, mind you. Tie's are flown by numerous
clone Turkeys; X-Wings by a few, precious Aces.)

And, IF I can't, stop complaining about Jar Jar. You deserve him. (I
appreciate him; no, really.)
***

Just like to point out that another disadvantage apart from launch and recover
times is that a bad threshold roll or recovery roll for the
launch bay can severly affect future launch/recover rates.

If you really want to hinder seperate launch bays, make them use the fighter
recovery roll to prep a fighter squadron.

I think we are quickly seeing why all the GZG universe powers use
combined launch bays/hangars. :p

Kevin

> On 22/02/2013 12:13 a.m., Ground Zero Games wrote: