Ground-Based Fighters (longish)

6 posts ยท Jul 15 1999 to Jul 16 1999

From: Jeff Lyon <jefflyon@m...>

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:07:38 -0500

Subject: Ground-Based Fighters (longish)

Here's something for you other vaccuum-heads to chew on while all the
mud-foots are reloading their shotguns...   :)

Although most of this discussion will be specific to the Imperium/FT
campaign rules I've been working on, hopefully some of the ideas I'll present
will have general applicability to any scenario in which
ground-based fighters are present.

Two of the problems I'd been running into with the Imperium campaign rules
(see: http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jwlyon/FT/imperium/) has been how to
handle fighters and planetary defenses. I was having three major problems
making it all fit together:

1) FT fighters were substantially more powerful relative to starships than
Imperium fighters are; using the same conversion rate I used for ships a
fighter squadron with a combat rating of 1-2-2 or 2-1-2 should have been
slightly more powerful than a scout ship but slightly less powerful that a
destroyer. (See:
<http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jwlyon/FT/imperium/V2ships.txt> for the
conversion rates and for the ship designs with Imperium combat factors, please
see:
<http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jwlyon/FT/imperium/v2shipsan.htm>)

If I designed a ship with those combat ratings it would have 2 class-1
beams and a submunitions pack or vice versa for a total of 3 mass-1
weapons. In reality, I was finding that a squadron of standard FT fighters
would have a combat factor more on the order of 6-0-2 or so.  Note that
this is almost twice as much firepower.

I tried tinkering with the rules for fighters in order to reduced their
firepower and considered increasing their point values but was not satisfied
with any of these attempts and found things drifting further and further away
from the FT core rules.

2) Fighters in Imperium were supposed to be able to operate from bases on
outposts or worlds (ie, without a mothership) but this caused play balance
inequities if players were allowed to purchase FT fighter squadrons without
accounting for the cost of hangar bays.

3) When I did try to account for the hangar bay in the cost of an outpost or
planetary defense marker, then it not only limited the number of points that
could be spent on other weapon systems but also limited the total number of
fighter squadrons that could be supported when it should have been scaleable.
Even worse, if a player did not purchase fighter squadrons, then the points
spent on hangar space went to waste.

I think I've come up some ideas which will help eliminate most of these
problems without creating too many others.

The first was a conceptual change; I quit trying to translate the Imperium
fighter squadrons to FT fighter squadrons on a 1:1 basis. I'm finding now that
equating a single FT fighter squadron to two Imperium fighter squadrons is a
much closer match in terms of combat effectiveness.

The next issue was to balance the cost of FT fighter squadrons which are
operating independent of a carrier. There are two ways this could be handled:

The first is to purchase a minimal base station for each squadron; Mass
10-11, fragile to weak hull integrity, mass 9 hangar bays, cost: 39-42
points. This can be either a ground base or an orbital station.

The second is a little more elegant in some ways; create a new fighter variant
called "ground based fighters" or something. This would be a 36 or
42 point (+6 to +7 per fighter) modification which allows the squadron
to operate independent of a starship or base with a hangar bay due to its
organic support facilities. (I'm visualizing a tarmac and some prefab sheds
full of aircrew and support equipment, or niche carved out of the side of an
asteroid or even the main hold of a freighter.)

There are advantages and disadvantage to either mechanism; the former is
simple, requires no new rules and creates a distinct target for enemy ships
and fighters to counter-attack.

The second is a little more elegant and possibly more flexible, but
provides no clear-cut mechanism for resolving attacks against the
support facilities.

Both solutions eliminate the problems of costing the support facilities as
part of a planetary defense system and by directly associating those costs
with each squadron of fighters, makes it proportionately scaleable.

Also note that the new cost of a ground-based squadron of standard
fighters (either 54 or 60 points) is fairly close to the cost of two squadrons
of fighters in Imperium: 2 RUs or 50 points.

Whether this will achieve the desired effect in terms of balanced the combat
effectiveness vs cost for fighters is something which will need to be worked
out in playtesting. I would certainly welcome any feedback on it.

Thanks.

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:46:47 -0700

Subject: Re: Ground-Based Fighters (longish)

> 3) When I did try to account for the hangar bay in the cost of an

This does have some historical precedent. However, I think that your
suggestion below addresses it.

> The first is to purchase a minimal base station for each squadron; Mass

I prefer this option, as it allows your fighters to act as fighters regardless
of where they're based. What if some of your new variants were used to
replenish a carrier. What happens to the extra support points.

> The second is a little more elegant and possibly more flexible, but

Or what happens to those facilities when the fighters are relocated.

Those facilities are just as important as a carrier in battle - and
potentially just as large a target.

From: ScottSaylo@a...

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:22:08 EDT

Subject: Re: Ground-Based Fighters (longish)

> In a message dated 7/15/99 6:44:23 PM EST, schoon@aimnet.com writes:

<<
Or what happens to those facilities when the fighters are relocated.

 Those facilities are just as important as a carrier in battle - and
potentially just as large a target.
> [quoted text omitted]

Ever visit an abandoned airfield? The weeds grow up through the taxiways, the
glass vanishes from the buildings and it just quietly rots. In space this
would be even more dramatic and refitting these orbital fighter bases would
cost time and resources. I'd charge points equal to 25% of the baswe cost per
year of abandonment in a space or hostile atmosphere situation. 10-15%
for surface facilities in hospitable environments.

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:35:28 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: Ground-Based Fighters (longish)

> On 16-Jul-99 at 09:24, ScottSaylo@aol.com (ScottSaylo@aol.com) wrote:

Why? Nothing to oxidize them, no plants to tear at them. Just a
micro-meteorite every 20 or 30 years and a bit of radiation.   I
guess maybe temperature changes if it is on orbit, but otherwise space is
about the most stable environment around.

I think your prices are reversed.  15%/year for planet bound,
25% for hostile atmosphere, and 5% for space.

From: Don Greenfield <gryphon@a...>

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:43:45 -0600

Subject: Re: Ground-Based Fighters (longish)

> At 09:22 AM 7/16/99 EDT, ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 7/15/99 6:44:23 PM EST, schoon@aimnet.com writes:

I'm not sure I buy this. In space there aren't plants growing through the
concrete, rats chewing through wiring, locals stripping the builings of
plumbing, an atmosphere to enhance oxidization, anything like that. The
only real problems are micro-(or larger) meteorites and radiation, and
the FT nations have a suffienctly high TL that I can't see those being serious
problems. I'm sure abandonded bases will need some time to be refurbished, but
much, much less time and effort than would be needed groundside.

From: ScottSaylo@a...

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:46:04 EDT

Subject: Re: Ground-Based Fighters (longish)

In a message dated 7/16/99 8:37:12 AM EST, books@mail.state.fl.us
writes:

<<
Why? Nothing to oxidize them, no plants to tear at them. Just a
 micro-meteorite every 20 or 30 years and a bit of radiation.   I
guess maybe temperature changes if it is on orbit, but otherwise space is
about the most stable environment around.
> [quoted text omitted]

Every air lock seal in the facility is going toharden, crystallize and become
non-functional, Col and heat extremes inside the facility as it
stretches and
contracts metallic and non-metallic surfaces. Sky Lab was unuseable a
long time before it "bombed" Australia. A facility in use is constantly being

maintained, no one there means no routine maintenance and nothing works
without maintenance in a hostile environment.