It's nice to see the list discussing the possibility of separating the Launch
Bays from the Fighter Hangers, as this has been one of the more disappointing
aspects of the FT & FB rules for me. Most fiction - and starfighter
computer
games (Wing Commander, anyone? <G>) - that deals with the subject of
starfighters and carrier ships have 'catapult damage' as a pivotable part of
the storyline. Currently, there is no game mechanism in FT that can properly
simulate this.
What I'd like to see is fighter hangers and launch bays designed around the
launcher/magazine idea that the SMLs currently use - every hanger has a
specific launch bay that it is connected to, and this launch bay is subject to
threshold checks and needle beam attacks in the standard manner.
Proposal: * Fighter hangers and launch bays are included in the standard costs
on a 3:1
basis (1->3 hangers = 1 free launch bay, 4->6 hangers = 2 free launch
bays, etc.). * Fighter hangers must dedicated to specific launch bays. * Extra
launch bays can be bought for 5 mass & 15 pts each. * Each launch bay can
launch 1 fighter group per turn, and can handle a maximum of 3 fighter
hangers. * A fighter hanger cannot be serviced by more than one launch bay
(same
restriction as SML launchers & magazines - in reverse <g>).
* A ship can recover 1 fighter group per turn for every 2 launch bays (or
fraction thereof), this restriction is more a function of 'traffic control'
and logistics (it always takes more time to recover fighters than it does to
launch them).
These rules would allow all of the current FTFB ships - with the
exception of
the FSE's Jeanne D'Arc - to function as is without change. These rules
do allow the Jeanne D'Arc to launch 3 fighter groups per turn and recover 2
per turn, but this increase in functionality is more than offset by the launch
bay's vulnerability to threshold checks IMO.
Comments?
> What I'd like to see is fighter hangers and launch bays designed around
This is one of the more interesting proposals I've seen in a while. Much
potential.
> Proposal:
What might be another option, which would not require a redesign of existing
ships, would be to leave the existing bays as is, and add another system.
Think of it as the difference between an MT missile and an SML. Make a new
internal bay system, which perhaps takes up less mass because of the lack of
integrated launch facilities, and a launch system. That way you can try either
design method.
In a message dated 99-01-11 23:02:03 EST, you write:
<< >What I'd like to see is fighter hangers and launch bays designed around
the
> launcher/magazine idea that the SMLs currently use - every hanger has
This is one of the more interesting proposals I've seen in a while. Much
potential. >> I had not thought of that, but it is a great idea. How about the
same stats as the SMLs, with fighters replacing the missile reloads? My $.01
and Schroon's $.02 and someone elses $.02, all in all $.05:)
-Stephen
In a message dated 99-01-11 19:16:50 EST, you write:
<< It's nice to see the list discussing the possibility of separating the
Launch Bays from the Fighter Hangers, as this has been one of the more
disappointing
aspects of the FT & FB rules for me. Most fiction - and starfighter
computer
games (Wing Commander, anyone? <G>) - that deals with the subject of
starfighters and carrier ships have 'catapult damage' as a pivotable part of
the storyline. Currently, there is no game mechanism in FT that can properly
simulate this.
What I'd like to see is fighter hangers and launch bays designed around the
launcher/magazine idea that the SMLs currently use - every hanger has a
specific launch bay that it is connected to, and this launch bay is subject to
threshold checks and needle beam attacks in the standard manner.
Proposal: * Fighter hangers and launch bays are included in the standard costs
on a 3:1
basis (1->3 hangers = 1 free launch bay, 4->6 hangers = 2 free
launch bays, etc.). * Fighter hangers must dedicated to specific launch bays.
* Extra launch bays can be bought for 5 mass & 15 pts each. * Each launch bay
can launch 1 fighter group per turn, and can handle a maximum of 3 fighter
hangers. * A fighter hanger cannot be serviced by more than one launch bay
(same
restriction as SML launchers & magazines - in reverse <g>).
* A ship can recover 1 fighter group per turn for every 2 launch bays (or
fraction thereof), this restriction is more a function of 'traffic control'
and logistics (it always takes more time to recover fighters than it does to
launch them).
These rules would allow all of the current FTFB ships - with the
exception of
the FSE's Jeanne D'Arc - to function as is without change. These rules
do allow the Jeanne D'Arc to launch 3 fighter groups per turn and recover 2
per turn, but this increase in functionality is more than offset by the launch
bay's vulnerability to threshold checks IMO.
Comments? >> I like it, it works like the rules from Renegade Legion:
Leviathan, I thought that those rules were great. One point is having external
fighter groups, in the Wing Commander Book (is anyone seeing a trend? First we
have the Behemoth from WC3 and then the launch damage from all Wing
Commanders, most importantly WC2, were is plays a pivital part in the plot)
End Run, in that book they talk about the difultys of using them. I would
treat them as a per above, but like a SM rack, it the ship could not maneuver
for three turns, on the third turn it could launch any number of external
fighter groups, any comments?
-Stephen
Hiya Sean!
[OT]------------
Have any more Heavy Gear minis for sale <g>? I have an officemate who is
bemoaning the loss of RAFM as a supplier...
------------[/OT]
> At 07:49 PM 1/11/99 -0800, you wrote:
[snip]
> This is one of the more interesting proposals I've seen in a while.
Much
> potential.
Thanks! I see this as a real value added proposal - nothing makes
better space opera than the loss of the launch bay right in the middle of a
hard fought battle.:)
[snip]
> What might be another option, which would not require a redesign of
OK, and one way to balance that is to make the mass/point costs of the
new method more expensive than the 'stock' one. More modularity = more weight
= more cost. That way there's some justification for the current
(non-modular) system - it's cheaper to build integrated systems than it
is to make them modular.
How's this for a SWAG:
Hanger Space: 1.4 MASS per fighter 4 MASS per 3 fighters if bought in groups
of 3 point cost: Total hanger MASS x 3
Launch Bay: 4 MASS for 6 fighter hanger capacity
+1 MASS per additional 6 fighter hanger capacity
point cost: Total launch bay MASS x 4
A single launch bay can normally service a single standard fighter hanger. If
a launch bay must service additional hangers, the additional MASS requirement
represents the interconnections, fighter transport elevators, CCC, service
areas, etc. For example, a launch bay that services three
fighter group hangers (18 fighters) would weigh 4+1+1=6 MASS and cost 24
points. This additional cost is irrespective of whether the fighter hangers
are separate or combined.
Launch bays and fighter hangers can be combined in any manner desired, with
the following restriction: no single hanger can be serviced by more launch bay
capacity than it has hanger capacity. For instance, a single large
24-fighter capacity hanger can be serviced by one to four launch bays.
However, a 9-fighter hanger (1 full group + 3 'spare' fighters) could
only be serviced by a single launch bay, since two launch bays have a capacity
of 12, which is greater than the hanger capacity of 9. Notice that *each*
launch bay servicing that large 24-fighter hanger incurs the extra
capacity
mass penalty - if there were 3 launch bays servicing the 24-fighter
hanger, the hanger space would cost 32 MASS and each launch bay would cost 7
MASS a piece for a total of 53 MASS.
Each undamaged launch bay on a ship can launch a full fighter group per turn
without penalty. The number of fighter groups (full or partial) that
can be recovered per turn is equal to 1/2 the number of undamaged launch
bays, rounded up.
As is the case of the FTFB designs, none of the MASS figures listed above
actually include the fighters, which must be bought separately.
While I have always liked the idea of separate Hangers and launch bays, there
was a wide ranging discussion here on the list (last year I think) about this
whole subject. IIRC the eventual conclusion was that given an agreed turn
length of about 20 minutes, any ship should be able to launch all its fighters
in one turn. If this is the case, there is no longer any need to differentiate
between hangers and launch bays. Pity, but there you
go.....
> Mike.Elliott@bull.co.uk wrote:
Greetings,
Perhaps putting the launch and landing bays/tubes/whatever on the
SSD is the answer. The concept of the second bay being heavier than the first
is
really rather silly. Much of the 'mass' is in the structure (hull)
and is presumed to be paid for during design and construction. Since this is
not a 'Weapon' the mass increase is not necessary or
advisable. All fighters may start the game 'in the air' and only
recovered and rearmed fighters are affected by the proposed launch
bay/tube concept. This will be a lot of design work and headache
for something that will only seldom be used/seen during a game.
Bye for now,
> This is one of the more interesting proposals I've seen in a while.
Much
> potential. >>
How about something like this:
Internal Bay 1 MASS per fighter POINT COST = MASS x 3 Launch Tube 6 MASS POINT
COST = MASS x 3
This should be enough to start some lively debate ;-)
> -MWS- wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Proposal:
XXX Unpleasent by true, light carriers will not fit this concept and
will have to be redesigned. Not really a good thought.
However, a two to one ratio might fly. JTL XXX
> * Fighter hangers must dedicated to specific launch bays.
XXX
Not a valid concept. I would not like to limit my options this
much if
I was designing a carrier. I would have 'crossover tubes' to allow the
launch
of fighters if the bay door 'got stuck' due to a blown fuse. JTL
XXX
> * Extra launch bays can be bought for 5 mass & 15 pts each.
XXX This will never be used as fighters may start the scenario 'in flight'.
(But with 'house rules or scenario conditions' you can do anything you like.
JTL XXX
> * Each launch bay can launch 1 fighter group per turn, and can handle
XXX Not quite, see below. JTL XXX
> * A ship can recover 1 fighter group per turn for every 2 launch bays
XXX This concept provides the interconnection between the
hangers/launch bays
that I mentioned before, or is the rearm sequence (by turn): 1) land on
landing bay. 2) move to launch bay. (preventing any launch in the bay) 3) move
to hanger. 4) rearm. 5) move to launch bay. (if clear) 6) launch.
:-) JTL
XXX
...Snip...JTL
> Comments?
The question becomes: will an additional landing bay be required for each
additional launch bay and what is the cost of the beast.
(I personally do not have trouble with the fighters that return, there are so
few.)
Bye for now,