IF Fleet / Non-FTL Fleet / Fighter Fleet

It doesn't break the fleet book. You just need to ensure that in any
engagement you count the cost/mass/value etc. of the tender/tug.
Does it unbalance a scenario? Not if the scenario is written correctly.
Ships from the opposing force could try to "blow through" the non-FTL
ships
to attack the tender/tug. If the tender/tug has additional ships
protecting
it, they need to be added to the cost/points/mass/etc. of the side that
is
using the tender/tug. For one-off game, insist that the tug/tender
remain on the board or be counted as "lost".

IF / LLAR fleet thoughts:
Since we do not know what the miniatures look like, I think that the
non-FTL idea has more merit (unless Jon thought about this already and
designed the miniatures with launch bays). Perhaps the LLAR fleets could be
carrier based when Jon gets around to designing miniatures for them? The LLAR
are primarily mercenaries (I would grant them a system somewhere on the map to
call home). Fighters are easier and cheaper to replace than small ships
(corvettes and frigates). Fighters are also more flexible than smaller ships.

Fighter Groups: Someone suggested allowing smaller groups of fighters. I have
tried this
and it _DOES_ break the game. Since PDS attacks fighter groups, 6 groups
of 2 fighters will overwhelm a PDS defense quicker than 2 groups of 6
fighters. If we allow smaller groups of fighters, we will have to change the
way that PDS works. It will have to lump all fighters into one group; roll all
PDS; and subtract destroyed fighters at random from the collected fighters.
This
gets really _messy_ when you add in Hvy fighters and missiles.
Below is the smallest FTL carrier that can be produced under current rules.

Alexander class Auxiliary Carrier Bob Mackenzie Tech: Human (FB) Govt: ~PRM
Mass: 12 Cost: 45 (63) Clas: Auxillery Carrier (AuxCV) Hull: Fragile Strm:
None FTL: Std MD: 2
Armr: -
Damg: 1; 1 Crew: 1 Sens: Std Systems:
 Fighter Bay
Notes: The Red Banner Fleet (RBF) has never been much interested in fighters
considering the mass taken for hangers much better used for weapons. The
Alexander class was an attempt to field fighters for as little "wasted" mass
as possible. It had some success against light forces when deployed with
Cossack and Dnepr class ships but its inadequate thrust prevents it from being
deployed on "probe and run" recce missions.

-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----

> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> > This [carrier based fleet] makes for very inefficient ships, though.
 My
> IF

> It doesn't break the fleet book. You just need to ensure

My rule of thumb is to add 30% to the cost of the non-FTL
ships.

> Brian Bell wrote:

> Fighter Groups:

> this and it _DOES_ break the game.

Even if you use the Fighter Group Morale optional from MT? Using that, 6
groups of 2 fighters would see on average 2 groups of 2 fighters actually
attacking each turn, which is a *lot* less impressive than 2 groups of 6
fighters attacking... depends on when the morale roll is made, of course, and
MT isn't entirely clear on this point. And, of course, it depends on the use
of an optional rule.

Regards,

I did not try it with the Morale rules (forgot that there were such rules).

-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----

> -----Original Message-----