Planet-Based Fighters

Was there a discussion a while back about planet-based fighters?
Something about atmospheric streamlining as an additional cost factor?
I'm looking to cost air/space fighters for FT - a boost to any planetary
defense. Figure 1 turn to transit atmosphere after launch or during recovery
(in
which they are target-able by ADFC), then treat as standard fighters.
Cost +6 or +12 per group?

In a message dated 99-01-21 15:29:43 EST, you write:

<< Was there a discussion a while back about planet-based fighters?
Something about atmospheric streamlining as an additional cost factor?
 I'm looking to cost air/space fighters for FT - a boost to any
planetary defense. Figure 1 turn to transit atmosphere after launch or during
recovery (in
 which they are target-able by ADFC), then treat as standard fighters.
 Cost +6 or +12 per group? >>
I would go with +6 per group, if you just wanted ground support fighters
I would not modify the cost.
-Stephen

I can think of one easy way to handle it:

All fighters may enter/exit atmospheres by expending Endurance points.
  - 2 Endurance to climb out from normal worlds,
  - 1 for powered reentry.
  - Dead-stick recovery allowed for no cost, - may not rearm/reuse
during the game.

So planet-based fighters in FTFB get only 3 turns Endurance.

Now for specialty ground-based fighters - Allow boosters (+1 pt each) to
power
the climb-out, so the fighter retains all its endurance.

* similar to the effect of Long-range fighters-but booster mods can be
added to any fighter design. Once out of the atmosphere the boosters are
dropped/expended/whatever, so the fighter behaves as normal.

Note that all this changes from your comments below is that ANY fighter can be
used in the ground role, but those not intended for it spend their endurance
to do so.

Jared

"Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> on 01/21/99 10:22:51 AM

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

To:   "'FT List'" <GZG-L@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>

> Noam wrote:

> Was there a discussion a while back about planet-based fighters?

Unless you pay for the ground base as well (treat as a fragile-hulled
"carrier" with no engines and no systems except the bay), I doubt a mere
12 pts would be sufficient to balance them :-(

Later,

I'm of the opinion that given two equal mass fighters, of equal tech levels
that a planet based fighter will be more efficient-effective with pure
planetary-based operations than one that has to interface from orbit.
WIthout having to carry interfacing equipment it can dedicate more of it's
mass to weapons/armor/defensive systems whatever.

Likewaide a pure space base fighters is more efficient for space ops without
having to carry streamlining it can dedicate more of it's mass to thrust,
extended lifesupport, payload or whatever. Interface fighters, up to a certain
tech level, I imagine, are purpose built craft, and once a force is settled in
nicely, then eth planetary fighters take over, though I can see a
role for interface a/c for quick strikes etc.

Just an opening argument...

Los

> Izenberg, Noam wrote:

> Was there a discussion a while back about planet-based fighters?

Re: Jared's edurance cost/booster pack solution:
That's great. Should work well.

As for Los's comments, that why I was initially thinking they way I was
- the difference between say the space-only Starfury and the
atmosphere/space Thunderbolt. On the one hand, I think FT's level of
abstraction should allow Jared's simplified rule. On the other hand, requiring
planet based fighters to be their own breed is also logical and an easy change
to make.

Hmph, I can see compelling rationale either way. Now I'm stuck again.

> Oerjan wrote:

Ah, there's the rub. One of the rationales for planet-based fighters is
cheap defense - not to have to build an entire ship around the fighters.
I suppose for balance you _would_ have to pay for a fighter base of some
kind, though. An equivalent cost in points, at least. Thugh here's where we
can start addressing the sticky distinction between point costs for
game balance and point costs for ship construction. You _could_ base 10
fighter squadrons an a salt flat with a couple barracks and currugated
plastic hangars at a truly minimum actual cost, but the _balance_ cost
would pretty much like having a thrust 0 CV with 10 squadrons floating in
space. This is only important if you're trying to work Economics into
your game, though. But if you are, planet-based fighters look to be
vastly superior to carrier based, construction-cost wise, for planetary
defense.

> Los wrote:
..Snip...JTL
> Likewaide a pure space base fighters is more efficient for space ops

Considering the thrust that is available to the fighters in FT/MT ect.
streamlining is not important. Give me a big enough engine an I can
fly a brick. (Remember the F-4)
One turn to climb to orbit, operations, and then one turn to land is
sufficient to maintain the 'feel' of the function without adding unnecessary
complexity to the game.

Just a thought.

Bye for now,

> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Los wrote:

i'd agree. if we look at fighters from a hard-sf perspective (never a
good idea...), then sensible space fighters are going to be built along the
lines of starfuries, or, really, soyuz. aero fighters will be like modern
aircraft.

i'd say that a pure space fighter (as i think most fighters are assumed to be)
could no more go atmospheric than an unstreamlined starship. however, just
like starships, fighters could be streamlined. likewise, aero fighters would
be built for lower speeds and to make use of aerodynamic lift. even if it
could get into space, it wouldn't have the thrust or maneuverability to
compete with real fighters. maybe.

you would, however, be able to put space fighters on a booster stack and
launch them from the planet (like the electrons in dale brown's 'silver
tower').

it's good sf, but bad space opera. choose the perspective appropriate to
your universe / preferences. ymmv.

> Likewaide a pure space base fighters is more efficient for space ops

i suppose that in my model, interface-capable spaceborne craft would be
a highly specialist unit, used only in the opening stages of planetary
assault. probably used only by the marines, like the harrier in the us today.
the navy air arm would have space fighters, as they spend most of their time
(assuming they do) in space. the army air corps would have
ground-based aerofighters, probably with some sort of v/stol capability
so that they don't need to build much in the way of airbases before they can
use them. the planetary defence force (ie the air force) would have
booster-assisted space fighters and space fighters in orbital hangars.

you could have some fun scenarios in the upper atmosphere, where both space
and aero fighters are at the limits of their envelopes.

the boosters used for ground-based space fighters could also be used to
deliver SMRs and MT missiles to orbit, where the missile's drive would take
over. we've had this discussion before.

Tom

> Re: Jared's edurance cost/booster pack solution:

Well, to throw in a shameless plug, check out my Modular fighter rules of the
UFTWP (Mark's page). I will be sending an updated version to Mark either today
or tomorrow that includes streamlining option (cost +1, eff +1), Large
Fighters
(cost 2, eff -1, 4 per squadron), FTL, Submunition, and Booster packs.

> Hmph, I can see compelling rationale either way. Now I'm stuck again.

> Oerjan wrote:

Certainly not in a one-off game, but...

> Ah, there's the rub. One of the rationales for planet-based fighters is

Fixed defenses on my planet should cost less than your Fleet with the same
firepower. Common sense. What is insane is to play a game with equal points
where one side has nothing but ground based fighter. Simply recognizing the
difference and building it into the scenario fixes this - Though
admittedly there will be some tinkering to get the fight balance. By how much
must the
attacking force outnumber the defenders (point-wise) in order to win?
Dunno, but someone could have fun finding out!

> Izenberg, Noam wrote:
...snip...JTL
> Oerjan wrote: