More Fighter questions

In FB style FT how many fighter groups can you launch in a turn?

> In FB style FT how many fighter groups can you launch in a turn?

Depends if you are a 'Carrier' or not - see FAQ (included below) for
discussion on this point

How many fighters can be launched/recovered in a turn?
At present, same as FT2, a Carrier can launch 2 groups per turn while other
fighter carrying ships can launch one group per turn. All fighter carrying
ships can recover one group per turn.

What is a Carrier now that all ships can carry fighters? Determining what
constitutes a carrier is flexible. A suggested determination is based on the
Carrier designs in FT2 and in FB1.

In a message dated 7/7/99 11:43:16 AM EST, Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk
writes:

<<
What is a Carrier now that all ships can carry fighters? Determining what
constitutes a carrier is flexible. A suggested determination is based on the
Carrier designs in FT2 and in FB1.

> [quoted text omitted]

I would think that you could define a carrier as any size ship that has
effectively replaced its option to include primary batteries for the
inclusion of a preponderance of fighter bays - would that not do?

> <<

How 'bout this: Any ship which devotes more mass to fighter bays than it

does to it's other weapon systems is defined as a carrier. I'm a fan of

simplicity, myself....

> In a message dated 7/7/99 1:29:05 PM EST, john1x@hotmail.com writes:

<<
How 'bout this: Any ship which devotes more mass to fighter bays than it does
to it's other weapon systems is defined as a carrier. I'm a fan of simplicity,
myself....
> [quoted text omitted]

Hear! Hear! and concurrence!

> On 7-Jul-99 at 14:28, John C (john1x@hotmail.com) wrote:

Since we didn't see it anywhere we were going to be very simple, you can
launch 1 fighter group per turn for every 3 fighter groups
carried.  (IE 1-3=1 launch/turn, 4-6 = 2 launches/turn, 7-9=3 etc etc).

I have always been a bit bothered by the "if it's a carrier" bit without
giving a decent definition of what a carrier is.

> In a message dated 7/7/99 1:40:24 PM EST, books@mail.state.fl.us writes:

<<
Since we didn't see it anywhere we were going to be very simple, you can
launch 1 fighter group per turn for every 3 fighter groups
 carried.  (IE 1-3=1 launch/turn, 4-6 = 2 launches/turn, 7-9=3 etc etc).
> [quoted text omitted]

It should be based on the number of BAYS not squadrons. The bays launch and
recover fighters and you could carry extra squadrons as CARGO and still be
launching them if you don't tie it to the facility to launch and recover.

***
The bays launch and recover...
***

And arm, and fuel, and otherwise ready to launch.

Old argument, obviously some of which I've forgotten.

My recollection was that you COULD carry fighters as cargo, but stowed away
meant time and bay space to ready for launch, a LONG time compared to fighters
hot-in-the-bay, or even just landed from a sortie...

In fact, a long time compared to the period of a battle.

Other's mileage varied wildly on this one, though.

The_Beast

> In a message dated 7/7/99 2:00:30 PM EST, devans@uneb.edu writes:

<<
My recollection was that you COULD carry fighters as cargo, but stowed away
meant time and bay space to ready for launch, a LONG time compared to fighters
 hot-in-the-bay, or even just landed from a sortie...
> [quoted text omitted]

Absolutely - that's why launch rate has to be tied to bay facilities NOT

number of squadrons carried

***
Absolutely - that's why launch rate has to be tied to bay facilities NOT
number of squadrons carried
***

Which, in FT's simplicity, is the same thing, unless you start adding crated
squadrons.

You seem to complain there isn't a one-to-one correspondence of bays to
launch. If you MUST have that, then it's a house rule.

The_Beast

> In a message dated 7/7/99 2:13:07 PM EST, devans@uneb.edu writes:

<<
 You seem to complain there isn't a one-to-one correspondence of bays to
launch. If you MUST have that, then it's a house rule.

 The_Beast
> [quoted text omitted]
 I like the two launches, 1 recovery - but tying it to the number of
bays and tying squadrons to bay facilities makes big sense.

> On 7-Jul-99 at 14:52, ScottSaylo@aol.com (ScottSaylo@aol.com) wrote:

A rules lawyer thing. My assumption would be that if it is in storage it would
not be available during a combat. The tighter rule here is how much space does
a stored craft take? I would assume 1 fighter takes one space.

Whoops, not exactly the same, right? I mean, since FB1, they're costed
separately. Still, mechanics combine them.

Personally, I'm willing to use 'it's a carrier if St.Jon states so in GZG
published work.' If you want a bunch of fighters launched together, make a
bunch of single bay ships in a squadron... *meat*

The_Beast

devans@uneb.edu on 07/07/99 02:14:01 PM

Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

 To:      gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

 cc:      (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)

 Subject: Re: More Fighter questions

***
Absolutely - that's why launch rate has to be tied to bay facilities NOT
number of squadrons carried
***

Which, in FT's simplicity, is the same thing, unless you start adding crated
squadrons.

You seem to complain there isn't a one-to-one correspondence of bays to
launch. If you MUST have that, then it's a house rule.

The_Beast

> In a message dated 7/7/99 2:24:31 PM EST, books@mail.state.fl.us writes:

<<
A rules lawyer thing. My assumption would be that if it is in storage it would
not be available during a combat. The tighter rule here is how much space does
a stored craft take? I would assume 1 fighter takes one space.
> [quoted text omitted]
That's what I am saying carrying extra fighter squadrons to claim their
availability for launch IS a rules lawyer question. Tying it to bays relieves
the problem. A modern carrier has four launch catapults therefore it can

launch four aircraft in rapid succession. That is tied to the launch
facilities not to the number of squadrons carried. Occam's razor says tie your
rules to the facts and then go for simplicity.

You know? I REALLY hate it when someone's eloquence SO exceeds my own! Why
couldn't *I* have stated it so well! *seeth*

The_Beast

ScottSaylo@aol.com on 07/07/99 02:18:13 PM

Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

 To:      gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

 cc:      (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)

 Subject: Re: More Fighter questions

> In a message dated 7/7/99 2:13:07 PM EST, devans@uneb.edu writes:

<<
 You seem to complain there isn't a one-to-one correspondence of bays to
launch. If you MUST have that, then it's a house rule.

 The_Beast
> [quoted text omitted]
 I like the two launches, 1 recovery - but tying it to the number of
bays and tying squadrons to bay facilities makes big sense.

> > What is a Carrier now that all ships can carry fighters?
[...]
> >I would think that you could define a carrier as any size ship that

You might want to think about what scale you're operating at. Someone
a while back calculated that a typical FT turn was 15-20 minutes long.
Discussion of this amongst the playtesters gave one option of allowing all
fighters to be launched in a given turn (I personally leaned this
way, esp if a turn was 15-20 minutes long).

> I have always been a bit bothered by the "if it's a carrier" bit

There was some discussion of this a few months ago in the archives. I don't
remember what the average consensus was on this offhand.

Mk

> On 7-Jul-99 at 15:30, ScottSaylo@aol.com (ScottSaylo@aol.com) wrote:

> That's what I am saying carrying extra fighter squadrons to claim

Sounds like a plan. Any thoughts on 1 for 3? That would make the launch rate
on most of the current "casual" carriers 1, current CVL's would be 2, and the
current CV's would be 3.

We may try letting everything launch at once anyway. I know the carrier I was
on could launch many more than 12 planes in 15 minutes, and that isn't even
counting futuristic launch procedures. A B5 type launch facility (or the LAC
setup in HH) could reasonably deliver 100 fighters in 10 minutes.

> In a message dated 7/7/99 3:13:10 PM EST, books@mail.state.fl.us writes:

<<
We may try letting everything launch at once anyway. I know the carrier I was
on could launch many more than 12 planes in 15 minutes, and that isn't even
counting futuristic launch procedures. A B5 type launch facility (or the LAC
setup in HH) could reasonably deliver 100 fighters in 10 minutes.
> [quoted text omitted]

No doubt, but it might be best to visualize the technology first - and
then try to describe it in terms of the rules. Does each fighter have it's own
tube? Do they launch from the outer surface of the ship? Do they require a
catapult? Can they launch on their own engine power? How are they recovered?
Then you can describe rules to facilitate playing within the time period.

I seem to recall that the previous archived discussion had covered systems
such as parasite fighters, launch tubes, and recovery systems, as well as
discussion on "jeep" carriers for transport of crated fighters.

Some of the ideas discussed IIRC were that fighter bays represented the bay
space required to arm and repair a fighter, not necessarily the space for the
launch apparatus or recovery mechanism and that these items were
considered separate from but integral to the bays - in other words, the
bays
represented the bays, but a launch/recovery unit was attached to every
two
or three bays, and that if you wanted more launch/recovery units there
were
house rules for adding those - especially parasite racks.

I just thought of another reason for Flat Tops in Space.  In non-combat
situations the additional area provided by the large deck allows for easier
management and movement of the fighters into the correct order for launch, in
addition, work that doesn't require an atmosphere (burning in new systems,
testing

engines etc) can be performed on the deck, freeing up valuable hangar space
for more essential functions.

--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]

> In a message dated 7/7/99 4:14:13 PM EST, Lin@RxKinetix.com writes:

<<
 I just thought of another reason for Flat Tops in Space.  In non-combat

 situations
the additional area provided by the large deck allows for easier management
and movement of the fighters into the correct order for launch, in addition,
work that doesn't require an atmosphere (burning in new systems, testing
 engines
etc) can be performed on the deck, freeing up valuable hangar space for more
essential functions.
> [quoted text omitted]

Yeah, but what about weapon impact on the decks when the fighters are in

place? Do you take the first damage to armor from the spacecraft spotted on
deck? They surely aren't covered by armor! Large open launch and recovery
facilities are fine, but I think I'd want all that repair equipment under some
armor. After all the hangar deck is protected on "flat tops"

ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:No doubt, but it might be best to visualize the
technology first - and then

> try to describe it in terms of the rules. Does each fighter have it's

Sometime ago I suggested an optional rule that would allow launch facilities
and fighter bays to be purchased seperately. If memory serves correctly it was
9
Mass / 27 points (same as FB Hangers) for Launch Bays and 6 Mass / 18
points for Hanger Bays. You could launch in one turn as many fighter squadrons
as you had Launch Bays. I am working from memory here and the values may not
be exact. If anyone has the post or wishes to search the Archives I'd
appreciate it.

> In a message dated 7/7/99 4:51:58 PM EST, channing@glasscity.net writes:

<<
Sometime ago I suggested an optional rule that would allow launch facilities
and fighter bays to be purchased seperately. If memory serves correctly it was
9
 Mass / 27 points (same as FB Hangers) for Launch Bays and 6 Mass / 18
points for Hanger Bays. You could launch in one turn as many fighter squadrons
as you had Launch Bays. I am working from memory here and the values may not
be exact. If anyone has the post or wishes to search the Archives I'd
appreciate it.
> [quoted text omitted]

Anything along those lines should work. Simplicity is one of the reasons I
like GZG, but if it's rules are reality based (even in a conjectural
technology) they just satisfy better. LESS FILLING!... TASTES BETTER! You know
the argument

> In a message dated 7/7/99 2:13:07 PM EST, devans@uneb.edu writes:

As a [semi-official] suggestion, how about launch full complement in one
turn (based on earlier comments about turn length), and recover 50% (rounded
up) of full complement? Thus a ship with five groups embarked could launch
them all, but recover only three per turn.
Gets away from having to define "carriers" in terms of game function -
carrier just becomes a descriptive term applied to any ship that has a large
percentage of its payload devoted to fighter bays. "Crated" fighters carried
in cargo or in fleet auxiliaries should only be

That's why there the caveat of non-combat situations.  Just like real
wet-navy
carriers, if there is a chance for attack, most of the arming and fueling
occurs below decks in the hangars (i.e. fighter bay in FT). When not in
combat, the flat top allows more available "space" to perform routine
maintenance.

If someone is caught with fighters out on the deck (surprise attack during
refit for instance)
the fighters would count as limited armor - perhaps 3 fighters equal one
point of damage to represent them being highly vulnerable while sitting there.

--Binhan

[quoted original message omitted]

Just to jump in here, getting caught with their fighters on deck is exactly
what cost the Japanese navy a few carriers at Midway. All that fuel and ammo
sitting on the deck certainly didn't protect the ship.

This is just off the top of my head, but maybe the fighters could be something
like "available targets," in that if a
carrier is caught with exposed fighters, a mini-threshold
check is made for each hit to the ship. On a 6 (or 5-6), a
fighter is also hit, destroying the fighter and doing some extra damage to the
carrier itself.

-Neal

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

[snip]

> If someone is caught with fighters out on the deck (surprise

I liked the original rules of 1 launch for non-carriers and 2 for
carriers (defining a carrier that has equal or more mass in fighter bays as
offensive weapons).

Someone stated that when he was on a carrier, they could launch 12 planes in
15 minutes (with 4 catapults). This seems to just about match the original
rules. Turn is about 15 minutes. Each fighter group is 6 fighters. 2 launches
per turn is 12 fighters per 15 minutes.

---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/
---

[quoted original message omitted]

True about the launch rate but the strike force would form over the carrier
group and continue on as a stike group. Although the time to launch you force
would eat up fuel in space it would be different. As your fighters are
launched, they just glide in space while the newly launched fighters catch up
to the growing formation. Very little fuel wasted and when all fighter arrive,
they all would attack together. No need for the carrier to get involved in
combat and to launch the fighters near enemy ships, unless something like a
sneak attack at morning (like Pearl Harbor) or such.

> Brian Bell wrote:

2 Quatloos here - Given the nominal game turn is 15 minutes (yes, it's
nowhere set in stone, but that's the convention GZG-Jon has mentioned
more than once) I find it hard to believe that "cargo" fighters can't be
readied in a bay designed for fighters for several hours, unless the "cargo"
version of the fighter is actualyl stored deconstructed in boxes. I think it
would add an interesting flavor to a scenario to have an additional fighter
group drawn out of cargo (assuming mass devoted to it on the carrier) every
2-4
turns, depending on total bay space, available crew units etc...

> On 8-Jul-99 at 09:43, Izenberg, Noam (Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu) wrote:

I don't find it hard to believe at all. You have to bring up each piece of
electronics, test it and verify no problems. Check pressurization on the
cabin. Provide whatever is needed for fuel. Verify the ejection seat, etc etc.

Remember, space is a much more hostile environment than anything you are used
to dealing with, and all you need is one defect from the manufacturer to kill
the person flying the beast. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an 8 to 10
hour warmup including live tests of the engines.

"Oh #!$&, my controls just froze up, the wiring harness must have..." <nice
female computer voice> "impact in 3 2 1" BOOM.

You don't just take a spacecraft out of mothballs and throw it into combat.

> On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:17:54 EDT ScottSaylo@aol.com writes:

How bout this? Fighters are moved to external launch points before a battle
(if there is time) and may all be launched at once. The bay space is there for
repairs, refueling, rearming, general storage, etc. As
such, when a squadron comes back, they must enter the bays for re-fit.
So, all squadrons may launch simultaneously, but they must enter bays at a
lower rate, say 1 for 3. Also, I would assume that fighters are carried in the
bays during normal travel. So any carrier entering a battle from jump needs to
launch its fighters from the bays, again, say 1 for 3. Also, this means that
carriers caught by surprise will have their fighters still in bays, while the
attacker will be able to have all his ready on external points.

So, in a shorter form...........

Fighters ready on external points     all launch simultaneously
Fighters returning for re-fit                  enter bays at a rate of 1
sq for 3 bays per turn Fighters ready, but still in bays launch at a rate of 1
sq for 3 bays per turn Fighters not ready, still in bays may begin launch at
ready state, after 1 turn delay

The last is obviously a surprise situation. Tora Tora Tora anybody?? Or maybe
Midway is more appropriate. Has anyone considered what happens when a fighter
bay full of armed and fueled fighters gets taken out by a
threshold roll??     How bout this?

Bay with fighters gets hit  ........................  carrier takes
number of hits equal to 2x number of fighters in bay. Why 2x? They are inside,
in an enclosed space, and are going to hurt things. Badly. Obviously this
ignores screens and armor. This could get nasty if more than one goes,
possible chain explosions, a carrier could be crippled or destroyed by one
good attack, ala Midway. BTW, fighters on external points when their bay is
hit are destroyed, but there is no chance of additional damage (other than
scuffing the armor) There's another good reason for having them outside.

Anyway, there's my 0.02 Cr, before taxes

***
True about the launch rate but the strike force would form over the carrier
group and continue on as a stike group. Although the time to launch you force
would eat up fuel in space it would be different.
***

Before you go throwing away this 'disadvantage', remember that it might help
to balance the utility of masses of fighters, which others seem to have some
problems with. Me, I am STILL far more afraid of massed
SML's... WITH Hobie's reversed Kotche effect for 'em. ;->=

The_Beast

In a message dated 7/8/99 8:45:24 AM EST, Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu
writes:

<< 2 Quatloos here - Given the nominal game turn is 15 minutes (yes,
it's
 nowhere set in stone, but that's the convention GZG-Jon has mentioned
more than once) I find it hard to believe that "cargo" fighters can't be
readied in a bay designed for fighters for several hours, unless the "cargo"
version of the fighter is actualyl stored deconstructed in boxes. I think it
would add an interesting flavor to a scenario to have an additional fighter
group drawn out of cargo (assuming mass devoted to it on the carrier) every
2-4
turns, depending on total bay space, available crew units etc...
> [quoted text omitted]

A fighter crated for transport as cargo may be in several crates and require
assembly, engine test and run up, electronics calibration and test
flight -
come on! Using one "out of the box" in a matter of a couple hours - no
way.

> 2 Quatloos here - Given the nominal game turn is 15 minutes (yes, it's
version
> of the fighter is actualyl stored deconstructed in boxes. I think it

Even given that perhaps a "boxed" fighter could be prepared in  4-8
turns, I think that this would detract from the game unless used as a house
rule. Far better, I think, to have the extra fighters brought on line
inbetween scenarios.

Besides, the crew is going to have other things on their mind in the middle of
combat, other than taking things out of storage.

***
Even given that perhaps a "boxed" fighter could be prepared in  4-8
turns, I think that this would detract from the game unless used as a house
rule. Far better, I think, to have the extra fighters brought on line
inbetween scenarios.
***

Thanks, Schoon! Really, the point is, work out the play balance, fit it in to
the simple elegance of the rule structure, THEN worry about the PSB, right?

*gasp* A ship with 10-14 fighter squadrons?!?!

jeremy,superships should be added VERY carefully, usually in one-off
games!

However, inspite of my questions about fighters-in-space, I think I'll
play with the idea of launch tubes similar in concept to SML's...

The_Beast

> Channing Faunce wrote:

> Sometime ago I suggested an optional rule that would allow launch

This might be OK as long as you can't store fighters in the launch bay and the
carrier only carries fighters in the hangar bays (ie, the
launch bay is a launch/recovery *only*).

I'm wary about it, though: unless the enemy surprised the carrier (drops out
of FTL on top of it or vice versa, etc) I've never had any problems staying
away for long enough to launch my entire fighter force
- ie, the limited launch capacity hasn't been any real penalty. When
you reduce the hangar bay Mass to 6 (effectively reducing the cost of the
fighter squadron by ~20 points) without adding any real penalty to
compensate, the game balance is kinda broken :-(

Regards,

> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:

> A fighter crated for transport as cargo may be in severa

It is highly likely that a 'crated fighter' will have double the mass of a
fighter already assembled, and take up more space. Not only will you have to
put the thing together and test it, but you then must put away the packing to
clear the deck for operations.

However, the problem is one of divergent views; one group thinks of packing
cases with fighters inside and the other thinks of fighters in an
area off the main hanger deck/bay.   The fighters
in the 'storage area' are fully flightworthy and only need to be armed and
positioned for launch.

Bye for now,

G'day,

The Beast exclaimed:
> *gasp* A ship with 10-14 fighter squadrons?!?!

Sorry to scare you mate, but in FB you don't need a supership to carry
10-14 fighter groups, in fact I've got two carrier designs (for two
different nations) that have 10+ fighter groups one is simply the Jean
d'
Arc with the weaponary replaced by bays and the other carrier in question
has more bays, but less mass - it has a fragile hull. See what you can
do
with fragile hulls and/or the firm belief that the rest of your fleet
will keep you safe (probably)... why do I have this strange sense of deja vu?
;)

Cheers

Beth

In a message dated 7/8/99 5:59:20 PM Central Daylight Time,
> john_t_leary@pronetusa.net writes:

<<
However, the problem is one of divergent views; one group thinks of packing
cases with fighters inside and the other thinks of fighters in an
 area off the main hanger deck/bay.   The fighters
in the 'storage area' are fully flightworthy and only need to be armed and
positioned for launch.
> [quoted text omitted]

Generaly speaking a carrier does not have replacement aircraft aboard -
they want the space taken up with fighters they can launch NOW. A fighter in
the cargo hold is one crated for cargo storage, not flight operations, ask a

Carrier crewman alive today.

> At 10:14 PM 7/8/99 EDT, you wrote:

> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:

     I do agree with the replacement A/C statement.

I think too much is being made about this 'crate' concept.

If it will make you all feel better, change the 'storage area' to
read 'Airframe and Engine maintenance area' and/or 'Weapons and
Electronics maintenance area'. Rationalization can do wonders!!

Bye for now,

> And that crated fighter is better off (except for a very small few) on

Of course, on a tender it can't fight either. No launch facilities. Maybe
better put it back on the carrier.

> On 8-Jul-99 at 19:01, John Leary (john_t_leary@pronetusa.net) wrote:

I have no problem with them being armed and positionned for launch, as long as
you pay for them (in space and points) that way. IE if they are armed and
ready to go then they should be another triangle on the SSD.

Re: Activating "crated" fighters

Roger Books:
> I don't find it hard to believe at all. You have to bring up each

There are certainly a number of objections to the idea, but I can't buy this
one inan SF setting. If the thing was designed to be spaceworthy and combat
capable, its desgned to take glancing blows from weapons and still be
spaceworthy. If it can't be "assemebled" (and that could be as simple as
unfolding the wings on a carrier-based fighter today) and checked in a
half-hour power-up, it doesn't belong in service, IMHO.

> Remember, space is a much more hostile environment than anything you

This (and other comments) talk about truly "crated" - as in in a box in
several pieces - and never before assmbled or tested fighter. In that
case
I'd agree, but If I were storing "replacement" fighters on-board a
carrier,
they'd be well broken in and at least mostly assembled - the
cost/balance
being storage space vs. activation time. Pack it as small as possible in the
space available, but still 1 mass per fighter. These are subtleties, easily
swallowed in PSB.

Again, I think it would have to be scenario specific - probably
involving the heroic efforts of an outmatched carrier... Carrier with minimal
escort caught by attack group must get additional fighters out or be meat.

JTL:
> ...The problem is one of divergent views; one group thinks of packing

Bingo. Put me in the latter camp.

> On 9-Jul-99 at 09:00, Izenberg, Noam (Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu) wrote:

Then pay for them. Come up with a reasonable rule and I won't complain. How
about:

You may have fighters in storage, they take up 1 space per fighter and cost
the same 20 per fighter group (or whatever the base fighter costs). If
necessary the fighter group may be brought online during combat, it takes 1 DC
roll per fighter to do this (IE, 6 for a group). You must also have a free bay
in order to do this.

Sound fair?

> In a message dated 7/8/99 10:31:29 PM EST, laserlight@cwix.com writes:

<<
Of course, on a tender it can't fight either. No launch facilities. Maybe
better put it back on the carrier.

> [quoted text omitted]

Has it ever occurred to you that part of the carriers air group is the pilot?
The reason for having replacement aircraft is to replace battle losses battle
losses often include the aircrew. Maximizing the usage of the aircraft carried
means you depend upon your fleet supply train to get replacement crew and and
strike craft. They're a wasted space on the carrier and vital in the fleet
train.

In a message dated 7/9/99 7:58:22 AM EST, Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu
writes:

<< >...The problem is one of divergent views; one group thinks of packing
cases with fighters
> inside and the other thinks of fighters in an area off the main

Bingo. Put me in the latter camp.

> [quoted text omitted]

Bingo! Why waste the hangar space on a spacecraft you can't launch right now!
That is consistent with classical carrier usage, the position of lots of

spares to replace battle losses is NOT consistent with classic carrier usage.
Put me down for the former. Because it is consistent with the wet navy
ambience FB provides.

> Roger Books wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> How about:

It was OK, 'til you got to the damage control roll per fighter. We are talking
about starting with fully functional fighters,
not damaged goods.   Do you plan to apply this to fighters that
have been recoved from a combat mission as well?   It actually
makes a more reasonable scenario for recovered fighters than for fresh from
storage fighters.

Bye for now,

> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:

> Bingo! Why waste the hangar space on a spacecraft you can't launch

I take that the concept of CAP, and the thought of a second strike wave are
not viable concepts in your plans.

Bye for now,

In a message dated 7/10/99 12:22:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
> john_t_leary@pronetusa.net writes:

<<
It was OK, 'til you got to the damage control roll per fighter. We are talking
about starting with fully functional fighters,
 not damaged goods.   Do you plan to apply this to fighters that
 have been recoved from a combat mission as well?   It actually
makes a more reasonable scenario for recovered fighters than for fresh from
storage fighters.
> [quoted text omitted]

You're still avoiding the fact that carriers (for real carriers, that is)
today do not carry spare aircraft because they are not worth carrying. It
takes up hangar and ordnance storage space that coule be better utilized

soring ordnance and fighters ready for ops. Large space fleet carriers will
operate under the same constraints [at least I can see no reasonable argument
that they would not]. The replacement aircraft are flown in to the carrier
from land bases or from other carriers. Aircraft in crates are NOT loaded on
to carriers with cranes. Today a carrier sets sail from port with nothing
moire than a COD aircraft and the anti supbmarine carriers aboard. The air
group flies out to meet the carrier and lands aboard for stowage on the hangar
deck or the ready launch areas. Why would deep space carriers function
differently? A fighter not ready to be spotted and flown isn't worth having
aboard, and if you have it aboard then by God fly it! [thus making it
non-cargo and operational, right?0
Carriers lose aircraft in operations, aircraft from other damaged bird farms
will find their way aboard and replacements will be flown out. The fleet

train will replenish POL, fuel spare parts and ordnance. In space a fighter
could be assembled on a minimal hangar bay on the replenishment ship and

floated free with a pilot provided by the carrier if spares have to be brought
on line. There's no way to justify dead weight replacement strike craft
sitting in cargo bays on the carrier, unless that means they cannot be brough
on line until assembled, tuned, adjusted, checked out and test flown. If that
is the case then they are not available other than on a campaign

basis during rest and refit periods.

In a message dated 7/10/99 12:24:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
> john_t_leary@pronetusa.net writes:

<<
I take that the concept of CAP, and the thought of a second strike wave

are not viable concepts in your plans.
> [quoted text omitted]
CAP and second strike aircraft are part of the air group and therefore
operation strike craft carried aboard ready for OPS. I think that would be
apparent. I think that is also in line with (wet) navy oerations today. Really
other than planning for ways in which space oerations can be different in game
mechanics the ONLY model we have for testing what is reasonable is to look at
wet navy ops.

> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
XXX For a brief moment let us define the terms that will be used: FTFB Wet
Navy My term
Hanger Bay     Flight Deck	    Hanger Bay
N/A            Hanger Deck          Storage
Note: in the FTFB the arming/fueling of fighters is conducted
on the (wet Navy) flight deck only. JTL XXX
> You're still avoiding the fact that carriers (for real carriers, that
It
> takes up hangar and ordnance storage space that coule be better
XXX I have repeatedly stated that the 'stored' fighters are fully operational,
just because the pilots are at a briefing during the initial fighter launch
does not mean that they are not on the ship. JTL XXX Large space fleet
carriers will
> operate under the same constraints [at least I can see no reasonable
The air
> group flies out to meet the carrier and lands aboard for stowage on
XXX Lets look at it this way, you an I bring fleet carriers on the board,
yours has six squadrons already launched, mine has four, the number of
hanger bays on each of our ships.   Your compliment is six and mine is 7
squadrons of fighters. Your ship has 6 hanger bays, mine has 4 and three
storage areas, other than that the ships are the same. On turn one, two of the
three 'stored' squadrons on my ship are moved into hanger bays.
On turn two, the two are armed/fueled and the third is brought
to the hanger bay.
On turn three, the two are launched and the third is fueled/armed.
On turn four, the third is launched.

This is the way I would run such a ship, others may have different ideas. I
hope that this has made things a little bit more clear as to the intent.

Bye for now,

Scott Saylor says, "Don't carry spares; use the space for combat ready
fighters. Resupply is easy in today's navy, and will be in the future. Carrier
space is at a premium today, and will be in the future.".

Of course, the supply lines for fighter replenishment today are probably less
than 36 hrs at any time.

Can the same be said of the GZG-verse ?  It's a function of your FTL
mechanism, really. Certainly in a "gates separated by real space" universe,
the supply lines can be days or weeks long; long enough to justify spares and
repairs.

> Scott Saylor says, "Don't carry spares; use the space for combat ready
universe,
> the supply lines can be days or weeks long; long enough to justify

Play it any way you want it. Can we kill this thread now?

> At 09:48 AM 7/11/99 -0400, Tom McCarthy wrote:
universe,
> the supply lines can be days or weeks long; long enough to justify

In a message dated 7/10/99 11:26:51 PM Central Daylight Time,
> john_t_leary@pronetusa.net writes:

<< storage areas, other than that the ships are the same. On turn one, two of
the three 'stored' squadrons on my ship are moved into hanger bays.
 On turn two, the two are armed/fueled and the third is brought
to the hanger bay.
 On turn three, the two are launched and the third is fueled/armed.
On turn four, the third is launched.
> [quoted text omitted]

Why not simply increase the number of hangar bays? The flight deck and the
hanger deck on a wet navy carrier are used equally for fueling and ordnance.
As many aircraft as are possible to cycle on to the deck are up there. The
launch is conducted as additional aircraft are brought onto elevators and deck
spotted for the next launch. Strikes tend to be assembled on the deck and
launched, then because of fuel restraints the aircraft form up an dmove on
with subsequent launches forming subsequent strikes. But in reality if you
launch tankers first, then the first launch aircraft can hang around and top
off while the subsequent aircraft are spotted and launched. Slower strike
aircraft can launch first and the fighter cover can launch second and form up
as the slower strike aircraft move out on their strike route. The whole thing
is - if you got it assign it to missions, and if it is available to
assign to a mission it is not a "stored" aircraft or a "cargo" situation it is
part of the Carrrier Air Group and is not a "spare" in any real sense.
Carriers tend to carry aircrew in about a 20% excess for aircraft available,
so air crew can rest while the strike elements are rolled out for another
mission.

The air group conducts all air operations whether it be CAP, S&R, Strike,
Reconaissance, ASW, EW and ECW or tanking or running back to shore to pick up
fresh lobsters for the admiral. All the aircraft aboard are functional and
ready for service. There aren't any stored in little mothball containers

waiting to replace losses. And that's what you seemed to be saying. That they
were stored for use if needed. To most that would imply that they are spares,
not meant for immediate operations and without maintenance and flight crews to
assign to them until strike craft are expended in some way.

It seems to be a waste of assets to make storage areas rather than other

hangar bays and launch facilities so the strike craft can be cycled through
maintenance, ordnance and launch like they should be. A carrier design would
gain nothing by having sighters aboard that cannot be used right NOW. And if
they can't be used right now they are not part of the fleets assets during any
particular action (scenario) thought they might be brought on line between
scenarios in a campaign sense. Why bother to waste that space aboard the
carrier when your fleet train or logistical bases can do that for you?

In a message dated 7/11/99 8:45:37 AM Central Daylight Time,
> tmcarth@fox.nstn.ca writes:

<< Of course, the supply lines for fighter replenishment today are probably
less than 36 hrs at any time.

 Can the same be said of the GZG-verse ?  >>

For which purpose you have a fleet train or you BETTER have a fleet train.

> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
...Large snip...JTL

Because I was trying to be reasonable and invoke some sort of
play balence penelty for the 'hanger deck/stored' fighters.
If I wanted to be unreasonable, I would have had 8 fighters Sq.on
the carrier, (2 hanger bays, 6 in hanger deck/storage) and launched
them all at the start of the game per the rules.

And at this point, I defer to the roar of the bored and decline further
comment.

Bye for now,