Hello, I have a few questions relating to hanger bays-
According to More Thrust, (as I read it), an ancilliary craft hanger bay can
hold any small craft that fould fit its capacity, i.e. a capacity 10 hanger
could hold 1x MASS 10 craft, or 2x MASS 5 craft, or any other combination that
adds up to no more than MASS 10. Ok, I have some questions:
could a capacity 6 or more (hanger bay MASS 9+) hanger bay hold a
fighter squadren (MASS 6 of small craft), or do fighter bays require special
fittings (my personal feeling is the latter)? If fighter bays are distinct
from small craft hanger bays, what would
you suggest the mass and cost be for a dual-purpose fighter/small craft
hanger bay? Is the More Thrust limit that hanger bays have at least capacity 6
(minimum hanger bay mass under FB1/2 is 9 MASS) still in force?
The reason for these questions is that I'm working on a muti-role ship
design concept - for normal operations the ship fills its hangers with
fighters, but it can carry assault landers for special missions.
Finally, has anyone experimented with small (less than 6 fighters)
fighter squadrons based on smaller ships (for instance B5 White Star -
in later episodes shown to carry a small number of Nial fighters +
shuttle craft - IIRC they carry 2-4 Nials).
> Ok, I have some questions:
These are by no means official answers, but I'll give it a stab...
I would say that if the bay held something other then fighters originally,
then it could "hold" but not rearm or resupply fighters.
Squadrons have been pretty firmly established at 6 fighters. Though you could
allow a house design that departs from that norm, I'd be hesitant to allow it.
Hangers are hangers; although it would make sense that you couldn't launch as
fast due to the small craft not fitting into the combat launch system (or
however they're launched in your universe). It's more common to be dedicated.
There's no limit on the size of the craft bay (although multiples of 2 mass
are more efficient due to the 50% mass cost). The UNSC SDNs I gave a 2 fighter
bay at 3 mass to carry 2 LR fighters for recon duty.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[Pirates] Dame Captain Washalot
[DitD] Captain Puppilier
> -----Original Message-----
In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89B8D@VSTASV1>
> "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Hangers are hangers; although it would make sense that you couldn't
Interestingly enough (or not) I was thinking about my own semi-modular
UNSC designs when I posted the question - I'm thinking of giving the SDN
command hull module (used for both SDN and SDN-X) a mass 18
multi-purpose hanger - the SDN would typically carry 1 escort fighter
squadron + 1 MASS 6 assault lander - while the SDN-X would carry either
2 MASS 6 scout ships/pinnaces or 1 scout ship + 1 long range fighter
squad.
This would obviously vary with mission - I can see an SDN-X acting as
the command base for an elite roving special ops squad (part of U.N.
Intelligence Taskforce, maybe? :-) ) in which case fit a barracks module
in place of one cargo module, and carry a couple of long-range stealth
assault landers.
> Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[snip mu old msg]
In message <v04003a1eb58566cbada6@[63.201.229.94]>
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com> wrote:
[snip my old message]
> These are by no means official answers, but I'll give it a stab...
Hmm... so if you have a MASS 9 small craft hanger - cost 27, you _could_
carry a 6 fighter squadron, but not re-supply it - while if you have a
MASS 9 fighter hanger - cost 27, you could carry the fighters, _and_
resupply them, _or_ you could carry up to 6 MASS in small craft.
I'm not sure I like that - identical cost & mass gives different levels
of functionality depending which you choose.
It could be that individual fighters are _less_ than 1 MASS - FB1 just
states 1.5 MASS per fighter - without indicating what proportion is
fighter, and what is launch/recover/resupply equipment (LRR).
We could say that a fighter is a MASS 0.5 craft, and that 1 MASS per
fighter is LRR - in which case a MASS 9 fighter hanger would only have
room for a MASS 3 small craft.
or, if you want to differentiate between normal and heavy fighters -
normal are MASS 0.5, heavy (and maybe long range and torp) are MASS 0.75
- LRR is MASS 0.75 per fighter. Thus a MASS 9 fighter hanger would have
room for 4.5 MASS of small craft.
Anyone agree, disagree, comments?
> Squadrons have been pretty firmly established at 6 fighters. Though
Well, I largely propsed the idea to enable conversions of various genre
craft that have under-sized fighter complements - like the White Stars.
Can't think of any other examples ATM.
> Schoon
Just make it so that the fighter bay can't hold small craft. All those pesky
reloading and repair gantries built for fighters gets in the way of having a
large open area for larger 'small craft'
Chris
[quoted original message omitted]
> Hmm... so if you have a MASS 9 small craft hanger - cost 27, you
Hmm. Good point. But can a MASS 9 fighter hanger service a MASS 6 small craft?
In other words, can your troops disembark, cargo be unloaded,
etc.?
Though this has far less relevence at the tactical scale, it's something to
consider.
> I'm not sure I like that - identical cost & mass gives different levels
I agree, but then again see above.
I must admit that I can easily see both sides of the argument at this point.
> Hmm... so if you have a MASS 9 small craft hanger - cost 27, you
I think the answer should be (this is [SEMI-OFFICIAL] but just off the
top of the head at the moment!) that a small craft hangar and a fighter bay
are
two very different things - the former is basically a big empty space
with a launch port, while the latter is full of servicing and repair bays for
individual fighters, rapid launch and recovery systems etc. For the record, a
fighter is less than 1 mass (probably much less), but needs 1.5 mass of bay
and support stuff. You couldn't carry other small craft in fighter bays,
because all the support stuff gets in the way; you can CARRY fighters around
in a small craft hangar, but you wouldn't be able to support them in combat
operations (launch and recovery would be much slowed, as would rearming etc.).
Does that sound reasonable?
> At 09:27 2000-07-04 +0100, you wrote:
> You couldn't carry other small craft in fighter bays, because all the
This was what I was going to suggest as well. Small craft bays may launch 1
craft per turn (they are not designed for quick launch or recovery). Fighter
Bays are designed for quick launch, quick recovery and quick servicing. They
may launch 6 fighters per turn.
Thus, while you could house fighters in a small craft bay, it would take 6
turns to launch an entire squadron.
---
In message <v03130306b5874e09e4f5@[194.176.206.220]>
> Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I think the answer should be (this is [SEMI-OFFICIAL] but just off the
Yup, guess I'm going to have to junk the 'multi-purpose hanger' concept
- maybe I'll use slot-in standard sized hanger modules...
> --- Brian Bell <bkb@beol.net> wrote:
XXX This would very much depend on the requirements
for fighters/small craft. All of the fighters,
except torpedo, only seem to require fuel/energy
to make them ready to fight again. Due to the
need to ba able to service different designs of small craft the small craft
bay would be fitted
with multiple fuel/energy connections. One turn
service three fighters or fraction thereof seems reasonable. XXX
> >
XXX This seems excessive, as the bay is larger (read less cluttered) than the
standard bay and
the turns are roughly 15 miniutes. One turn
to launch per three or fraction thereof should be sufficient. XXX
> ---
Note: Even a small craft bay may launch all fighters prior to the start of
combat, so this causes no effect in the conduct of the game. The additional
turns in the arming and lauching are almost a moot point as I have never seen
a fighter Sq. recovered, re-armed, and launched again
in the course of a normal game. I would consider
this to be a rare occurance.
Bye for now,
***
This would very much depend on the requirements
for fighters/small craft. All of the fighters,
except torpedo, only seem to require fuel/energy
to make them ready to fight again. Due to the
need to ba able to service different designs of small craft the small craft
bay would be fitted
with multiple fuel/energy connections. One turn
service three fighters or fraction thereof seems reasonable.
***
*shrug* Obviously, if you wish so in your universe, go ahead, but I don't
think it takes much PSB to suggest there are marked differences between the
facilities.
I'd rather penalize an attempt to launch small craft during battles and say
the fighter bays are equiped to do so in battle mode, and forget about
fighters launched just before battle.
I can PSB those away, too.
***
> >
***
Yepper, and after fighting this battle yet again, I'll say you've spoken the
official word, until
you've decided to change it. ;->=
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> John Leary wrote:
> Thus, while you could house fighters in a small
IF you use the 15 minute turn scale rather than the 7.5 minute/1000
km-per-mu or 2.5 minute/100 km-per-mu scales, yes (or the ~30 second/a
couple of km-per-mu EFSB scale <G>). The FT scale is by no means
fixed..
> The additional turns in the arming and lauching
I suspect this'll become somewhat more common with the explicit rules on
fighter rearming and reorganisation in FB2.
Regards,
On 3-Jul-00 at 21:54, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (s_schoon@pacbell.net)
wrote:
> >Hmm... so if you have a MASS 9 small craft hanger - cost 27, you
Pick your background. A hanger in SW was a hanger. A hanger in most SF movies
is just a hanger. OTH a LAC carrier was dedicated so it couldn't be used
otherwise.
IMO I would say sub as you wish. A mass 6 small craft or a fighter squadron,
doesn't make much difference. In FT play I don't see much difference either.
It only hurts when you drop from fighters to a small craft, so I would have no
problem with it.
Do note that for small craft towing externally is much more efficient.
> On 4-Jul-00 at 04:24, Ground Zero Games (jon@gzg.com) wrote:
> I think the answer should be (this is [SEMI-OFFICIAL] but just off the
No. :)
In terms of game balance how does being able to switch from small craft bay to
hanger bay affect play? Does it give a major advantage? I can't really see
how. If it doesn't give an advantage then you are not improving game play, you
are trying to enforce your one PSB, and your PSB may be different than mine.