> At 02:46 PM 3/10/97 -0500, Mark Kochte wrote:
> Thinking about it more I would say that the piggyback/parasite system
I agree. There have to be some restrictions on the use of these racks. First,
I'd make the fighters vulnerable to damage when the mothership is hit if they
haven't been launched. Maybe make a threshold check for the fighters whenever
the ship takes ANY damage. For instance, assume the parasite rack
is mounted on a ship with damage boxes of 4/4/4. The ship takes 3
points of damage, leaving one point before the first threshold check is made.
However, the parasite racks (with fighters) have to make a threshold check
(roll less than 6 to save) IMMEDIATELY since they are vulnerable. Second turn,
the ship takes 1 more point of damage. This forces normal threshold checks
(the parasite rack makes one check, not two, this turn). Turn 3 the ship takes
one more point of damage and the parasite rack takes another threshold check
(rolling 1 to 4 in order to save it). Turn 4 the ship takes 4 points of
damage, leaving 3 points left. The second threshold was passed. The parasite
racks only make one roll, but because the second threshold point was EXCEEDED,
they are saved only on a roll of 1, 2, or 3.
Second, I'd make the fighters impossible to reload during combat. Assume that
the loading process is lengthy compared to combat (or even impossible without
some sort of tender nearby).
Third, these racks should cost NO mass (or a nominal mass of 1 due to
placement restrictions).
So: PARASITE RACK - Mass 1 or 0, Cost ?
- can be mounted on any cruiser size ship and up
- fighters are vulnerable and can't be picked up
- fighters launch as per usual
Any comments? Any ideas on point costs?
This suggests some interesting systems. How about external missile racks, or
external pulse torpedo mounts? Again, they would have negligible mass, but
would have limited shots and might be damaged when ANY damage is done.
EXTERNAL MOUNTS could be interesting systems.
This idea of a system taking damage along with the hull makes me think of:
REACTIVE ARMOUR - Mass 0, Cost?
- works like Kra'vak armour, but only against non-beam weapons
- any non-beam damage causes an automatic threshold check (the armour is
damaged as it deflects incoming damage)
- it takes normal threshold checks like any other system
- level 2 reactive armour drops by one level when a threshold check is
made (similar to the ship's drive taking damage and dropping by half thrust)
These ideas are just off the top of my head. Any/all criticism is
welcomed.
> Second, I'd make the fighters impossible to reload during combat.
Assume
> that the loading process is lengthy compared to combat (or even
Yeah, impossible to reload during combat. ANd/or require a tender of
some sort (base facilities can double as a tender, natch). Yeah, like that
restriction.
> Third, these racks should cost NO mass (or a nominal mass of 1 due to
What did Mike put them at? 5 pts or 15? I can't remember. Giving PRs a mass of
1, are you thinking per fighter, or per set of racks? I'm thinking per
fighter, and might be more willing to entertain 1 Mass per 3 P-Racks.
Why
1 Mass/3 P-Racks? Well...they aren't full-blown hangar bays, so don't
have the resources hangar bays have, but to prevent people just *dumping*
P-Racks
on their freighters, the 1 Mass/3 P-Racks gives some inherent penalty.
I'd also allow less than a full squadron to be attached to a given ship (ie, a
freighter spends 1 Mass and picks up 3 P-Racks for 3 fighters for
short-range
'Q-Ship' duty of sorts; the fighters function as normal, just at
half-strength
of a normal squadron - bummer if they meet a normal squadron ;).
As far as limiting them to ship-classes/sizes...why limit them to
cruiser-sized
ships only? Why not sayyyyy....you can mount 1 P-Rack per 4 Mass of
ship? So I
hear you saying, "but you're talking 1 Mass for 3 P-Racks! How do my
Corvettes, Mass 10, deal with this??" Simple. A Mass 10 ship could only mount
2
P-Racks,
and would have to spend 1 Mass to do it (round up on all Mass requirements for
P-Racks). Gives this Mass 10 ship a couple fighters for temporary added
'punch' and requires the Mass 10 ship to give up *some*thing for them.
Okay, so I'm just throwing numbers out. Maybe 1 P-Rack per 5 Mass of
ship. Whichever.
You'd also want to limit their uses in games, somehow, otherwise *every*one's
gonna want their ships to have them (I wouldn't, because they don't fit my
general ship designs, but I would be tempted to create a couple of specialized
'fighter tender' ships to fill this roll). Maybe allow a certain *small*
fraction of your fleet to have the option of P-Racks, with agreement of
all parties involved (meaning they can have 'em, too).
Eh....my 2 pence worth.
> This suggests some interesting systems. How about external missile
Shades of Starfire. ;-)
Allan, your snailmail arrived today.:)
Mk
> At 09:58 PM 3/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
Why
> 1 Mass/3 P-Racks? Well...they aren't full-blown hangar bays, so don't
I thought 1 or 0 mass because they wouldn't take up any/a lot of space
on the ship. Still, there should be some limitation on the number that can be
mounted based on the ship's external circumference. Perhaps one per escort,
two per cruiser, etc.
> You'd also want to limit their uses in games, somehow, otherwise
I've noticed in most games I've played that usable mass is more the limiting
factor than points. These racks should be expensive enough that mounting them
on freighters isn't as cost effective as mounting them on warships. That would
discourage their use. I think they would only be of real use in a
one-off scenario or in a campaign. In both cases, the expense is worth
it in order to catch the enemy unawares and unprepared. This ties in with the
B5 episode that clearly shows they were used for subterfuge and not as a
viable alternative to other ships.
> Shades of Starfire. ;-)
Maybe subconsciously. But it's been a lot of years since I've played Starfire.