NI>> If tug cap is always rounded up, them the clamps are 2 mass and engines
NI>> are 1 mass for 5 thust
JN> Huh? I didn't follow this one
I was looking at the cost for tug carrying capacity as being the structure of
the tug needed to hold the mass being towed. In the case of parasite fighters,
the clamps etc that holds them onto the FTL body. If your round a capacity of
6 mass down, you get 1 mass, and if you round it up you get 2 mass. If you
require 2 mass for the clamps on my example tug, then you only have 1 for
thrust, which gives you a thrust of 5 on a mass 5 ship.
I see Jareds other objections to the small jump carrier', but John Leary
balances them pretty well. Given the purpose of a tug, I could see that
while no-one would want to be on an extended mission in one of these
things, but jump-capable is jump-capable in this game, be it scout or
batttlecruiser.
JTL> Other than pilot, fuel and energy for the JTL> weapons nothing can be
added JTL> or removed from the fighter.
I'd agree with that too.
JTL> Tug sub-light drives are designed to
JTL> operate at the loaded mass ofthe tug. JTL> Towing the cargo should not be
a problem.
For me, I'd take the thrust reduction. It's the FTL that has the tug capacity,
not the thrust drive. If you add 120% mass to a ship, without altering the
thrust force, you get a ~55% reduction of acceleration.
It comes down to how you think small ships can be configured., and how long
they can "last" operating on their own, and whether parasite fighters' pilots
are trapped in the fighter itself for the duration of the mission.
The real problem is that an FTL fighter group for 33 points is unbalanced in
terms of game mechanics. I don't know how to solve that without using Jared or
Tom Barclay's PSB, when I prefer JTL's.
The other issue I have is with tugs vs. bays. I have 3 designs (two cruisers
and a destroyer) that each carry a single fighter squadron in a launch bay. I
could save myself 7 mass to use for other systems If I made the fighters
parasite fighters (get nine back for the bay, use 2 for the tug carry cap. Or,
If I wanted to play the resupply game, I
could buy a small bay and cargo space to service/reload fighters one or
two at a time between scenarios. This would give me 2 or 3 mass (9 for
no bay, -2 for FTL tug cap, -4 or 5 for a small bay and cargo). that I
could put into other systems. Is there a compelling reason _not_ to do
it this way, assuming I want to keep the squadron on these ships?
Tom B - I'd love to see the specs for your MFRD. it sounds like no fleet
should be without one.
> Noam wrote:
Reasons not to have parasite fighters:
The fighters/clamps are easily damaged by enemy fire. I would rule that
for
each damage point taken by the ship, a fighter/clap (depending if
launched or not) destroyed. 6 points of damage on your ship and your fighters
can
not re-attach.
Fighters can not re-attach/land during a scenario. The clamping process
it
too delicate of a procedure to under-take while under fire as compared
to landing a fighter in a bay. So no matter what the length of the engagement,
fighters can't re-arm.
Unless it is a special situation (like the Black Omegas) I would say that the
pilots of parasite fighters would be worse than those from a true carrier. If
I was a good fighter pilot, I'd rather have a bay to land in and have my
fighter worked on than be assigned as a parasite fighter jockey who may not
have a clamp to fly back to after buzzing around the edge of the battle after
my endurance ran out, then only to have to wait my turn to get my fighter
worked on in the modified cargo bay.
Personally I don't think there would be an easy way to clamp on the fighter
and allow a hatch for the pilot to get inside and allow for refueling. That
stuff would take more space than just clamps and increase the clamps
fragility.
> Reasons not to have parasite fighters:
The rules don't allow them
PSB They would be ripped to pieces by the stress of the Jump. Thats why they
have to be stored internally.
> Dean Gundberg wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Reasons not to have parasite fighters:
...Snip...
XXX The fighters are as easily damaged as any system that has an external
aspect to it. Weapons, FCS, sensors, and thrust all have the same
disadvantage. This rule if invoked should also apply to all systems that are
external. JTL XXX
> Fighters can not re-attach/land during a scenario.
...Snip...
XXX
I have never seen fighters able to perform a re-arm during a game,
so this is not much of a disadvangage. JTL XXX
> Unless it is a special situation (like the Black Omegas) I would say
XXX If I understand the logic behin this thought: 1) All parasite pilots
should be turkeys in the rules, with maybe one normal out of 6 sq.. 2) All
carrier pilots should be half turkey and half normals. 3) All ground based
aerospace pilots (not carrier qualified) should be normal, with maybe one ace
out of 6.
4) All fighter pilots (non-aerospace capable) are half normal and half
aces.
5) All non-fighter pilots (I.E. transport) are all aces.
I can live with that! (But only as the attacker.) (It's a long dull joke, OK.)
JTL XXX
> Personally I don't think there would be an easy way to clamp on the
That
> stuff would take more space than just clamps and increase the clamps
XXX The process is the same as in the hanger bay of the carrier. Todays
fighters
carry refueling probes, why not the FT fighters. The FT fighters carry
energy based weapons, and need to be 'recharged' before use. This can be done
at the same time as fueling thru a seperate connection, or use some surface
contact
energy transfer. Pilot exit can be accomplished thru a low pressure
collar
around the front of the fighter, inflated when the fighter docks. JTL
XXX
> Dean
Bye for now,