I have to go along with Mk here -- I _never_ use the fighter endurance
rules, for one very simple reason: the endurance figure is just too short!
Quite apart from the fact that any SF universe that I might want to simulate
using FT usually has fighters that roam about for hours on end, I think that
the limited endurance given in MT handicaps the fighters to too great an
extent. I mean, IIRC (and I could be wrong here, because I haven't looked at
those rules for some time), by the time that a CV launches all its fighters,
the first groups out the tubes have hit "bingo" and have to make their way
back! (Forget about Alpha strikes, folks) All of which is just not on, IMO.
I'd be more interested in fuel/endurance rules along the lines of those
discussed some time ago: each class of ship (inc. fighters) has a fuel
consumption rating per unit of thrust and a tank capacity. This way, a player
can choose to race around the table guzzling fuel quickly, or move more
sedately for a longer time.
It would also allow large-scale fighter wings to assemble and attack en
masse,
and tankers/bases become vital fleet elements instead of mere targets.
Phil, cackling quietly because he's _finally_ managed to find the B5
Micromachines set with EF1 and the Narn "Dreadnaught" in it..!
> At 03:45 PM 7/10/97 +0000, you wrote:
The endurance is just for how many combat actions(attack ship/dog fight)
that the unit may take part in. The fighters can spend all day out, just take
only 3 turns of combat actions. Works pretty good for us. It is more of a
limitation of ordinance I think than actual fuel consumption.
My 2 cents
That Chuk Guy
> The endurance is just for how many combat actions(attack ship/dog
My beef with the endurance rules isn't so much the regulation of
their 'combat effectiveness' as much as the rule that they have come into
effect once all fighter endurance is used. After those 3 combat turns of use,
they have 3 turns and only 3 turns to get back to their mother ship or they
all die. That is somewhat of a silly rule. The basic fighter group moves only
36 inches in that time. So the idea of keeping your carrier free of the battle
is suddenly ruled out
totally. You must keep your carrier close/within the fighting in
order to recover your fighters at all (and remember that a carrier can't
recover all it's fighters at once...) Normal carriers launch fighters and keep
themselves as far away of the fighting as possible, but with this rule in
effect, your carriers must be exposed to enemy fire the entire time they are
on the table from A batteries and missiles just to name two threats. Suicide
becomes the order of the day for carrier crews.
For every man, there is but one true love in his life. His only task, is to
recognize it, and cherish it for all time.
Well as far as re-launching fighters in battle, I made a chart.....
Arrrrgghh!! He said the "Chart" word!!!! Let's string him up!
> At 07:50 PM 7/11/97 +0000, you wrote:
> their 'combat effectiveness' as much as the rule that they have come
On this point I agree with you. We dont play with the return in 3 turns
rule. We just say they must fly the most direct/non suicidal route back
to the carrier, and they cant do any combat what so ever.
> On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Matt wrote:
> My beef with the endurance rules isn't so much the regulation of
> their 'combat effectiveness' as much as the rule that they have come
This was discussed before and the way to bypass having to get your carriers in
close is to sacrifice one turn of attacks. Until the fighters use their third
attack, they are given unlimited range. By sacrificing that third turn of
attack you can cruise back to your carrier. Although
this seems to be rules lawyering I think it is a fair trade off - 1/3 of
your firepower traded for increased range.
--Binhan
> from A batteries and missiles just to name two threats. Suicide
The rules do not mention this - how long before you can turn around and
re-launch a fighter group? (Suggestion: 1-6 turns)
If you can't turn around fighters, then the recovery rules a pointless except
for campaign games.
Just my 2cents worth.
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 17:54:33 +1000 (EST)
Well as far as re-launching fighters in battle, I made a chart
using a standard 1D6 roll. Based on the number of turns you wait before trying
to launch the fighters again.
1 Turn (after recovery)- 1-3 Accident, fighter bay destroyed.
4-5 Minor accident, play
next turn as if fighters were recovered this turn. 6 Fighters manage to
scramble, half endurance
2 Turns- 1-2 Accident, fighter bay destroyed.
3-4 Minor Accident (see above).
5 Fighters scramble, half endurance. 6 Fighters scramble, full endurance (good
work
guys!).
3 Turns- 1 Minor, see above.
2-3 Fighters Scramble, half endurance.
4-5 Fighters Scramble
4 Turns- Auto success, full endurance.
Which of course means that if you REALLY need those fighters out
ASAP you can try, but there are big risks. And if you feel you can wait, the
odds are greatly improved as time goes on (and the carrier gets pounded most
likely). And of course, when the fighter bay is destroyed due to the accident
all fighters go boom with it. Sorry, had to add that in (spend too much time
playing with GW games and GW minded players). "These three day workweeks are
murder!"
--George Jetson
> Robbie Matthews wrote:
In one of my own systems, I solved all fighter endurance problems by setting
up the construction system to build everything from fighter carried ordinace
up to dreadnoughts... If someone came up with a fighter construction system
that paralleled the ship construction system, then players could plan for
whatever endurance they wanted...