S
P
O
I
L
E
R
OKAY. Recently on B5 President Clarke sent Black Omega Squadron to ambush an
Earthforce patrol in order to discredit B5. Black Omega Squadron was linked to
external racks on a freighter. Here is my attempt to corrolate this with
rules.
Parasite Fighter Rack
[^]: symbol for Ex-rack squadron
30: Cost 1:Space
A ship may mount 1 squadron of Parasite Racked fighters per 30 Mass of Carrier
ship.Since this squadron is carried externally, any damage caused to the
Carrier vessel will destroy the Parasite Racks. If the
Racks are hit with fighters still embarked, roll a D6-1 and that many
fighters manage to disengage from the racks and launch. Parasite racks MAY be
used on civilian transports. This was what they were developed for in order to
provide escorts for merchants in high risk areas. A parasite rack may launch
at any time IN ADDITION to any normal fighter bay launches. They must be
recovered within the normal constraints of fighter recovery. Only Standard,
Superiority or Heavy fighters may be Parasite Racked as the racks do not
provide support for specialized weapon systems.
Thoughts? Comments?
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
It looked to me as if there were mechanical linkages. I tend to think
of those non-atmospheric shuttles as being more freighter-ish as we
see them out and about quite a distance from ships or bases.
[spoiler space for recent B5 ep maintained]
> S
I like it...it works. Though I prolly, being a less blood-thirsty
individual, unlike your Narn self, would've called 'em 'Piggyback Racks'
(piggyback...piggy...pig..spare ribs?? :-} oh, it's lunchtime!!)
I think you coulda also presented this in non-spoiler fashion so our
friends who are avoiding spoilers like the plague would read it. Merely forego
mentioning anything about That Episode, or save it for the end? Mmmmmm...naw,
presenting it as a generic system would, I think, work fine.
Doesn't have to be B5-specific. Heck, I can imagine it utilized in
almost an genre.
Well...you asked! :-)
Mk
I have to say I haven't seen the racks or episode in question, but having read
the first few lines, thought what the hell and read the rest anyway
:)
The rules look ok initially, but obviously I haven't had chance to give them a
go yet. A question though
Why have fighter bays at all??? they cost a lot take up lots of mass etc....
With racks like this about I see no reason to bother....
Aside from the protection it gives to fighters, what is the advantage of a
full bay? Am I missing something? Fighters are unlikely to be on the racks
when fired upon anyway as the whole point is they are there to defend the
carrying vessel.
_michael h
Spoliers Ahead....
Frieghter's? Parasite racks? I thought the Black Omegas were
hanging on to a standard, run-of-the-mill EA non-atmospheric shuttles
with their grappling arms. (The same arms that Sinclair used to grab the Soul
Hunter Ship in "Soul Hunter".)
Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a great idea. Later,
Excerpts from FT: 10-Mar-97 Re: SPOILER ALERT/PARASITE .. by M
Hodgson@york.ac.uk
> I have to say I haven't seen the racks or episode in question, but
Actually, from my interpretation of the end of the episode, he didn't get the
situation quite correct. But what the hey....
> The rules look ok initially, but obviously I haven't had chance to
I'd say it depends on how much one likes the more specialized fighters; you
should note that the racks were restricted to holding normal fighters,
interceptors and heavies. Of course, I don't think that leaves too many types
out, but the torp. ftrs *are* kinda nice.
However, I wouldn't mind seeing some additional restriction, like only being
able to reload one fighter per turn or something; those racks are *very* close
together, after all (they lauch one at a time, you notice) and the jockeying
neccessary for docking might mean that two fighters could hit each other if
they weren't careful. (OK, maybe 3
fighters/turn, since you can attach in every other bay....)
Or, alternately, require some sort of "cargo hauler" type vessel to dock the
fighters, but since the idea is from B5 I can't really see anything
like that being more maneuverable than a Starfury. ^_^
> Spoliers Ahead....
Yah, they were hanging by specially designed grapples - but *not* the
ones inherent on a 'Fury; those are located below the cockpit.
Mk
External Fighter Racks Topic below - no spoilers here
> The rules look ok initially, but obviously I haven't had chance to give
Well, without a fighter bay, ye ol' fighter jocks will have to sit in their
fighters for the *entire* duration while they are out. Also, fighters
cannot be serviced properly hanging from grapple hooks/piggyback
systems.
Definitely not from jury-rigged ones. By the time you go through the
hoops
and hassles of trying to service a fighter outside of a ship/dedictated
fighter bay, you might as well have had the bay.
Going on a bad analogy, why are there dedicated carrier ships in wet navies?
What purpose does it serve to have hangar bays for fighters on these ships?
You can prolly draw parallels between the functions and duties of fighters
bays on a starship, and those of hangar bays in wet navies.
Thinking about it more I would say that the piggyback/parasite system is
a one-shot deal, to give non-carriers limited ability to carry fighters,
but only over short distances (ie, not over a period of days, or the inherent
life support duration of the fighter(s) in question). Also, Hooking back up
should be more of a pain (this is something that could easily be done with
base facilities).
Mk
> > Aside from the protection it gives to fighters, what is the
well... your mechanics don't need space-suits, your pilots can climb
into
the cockpit without a special "loading" system, large-scale maintainance
(ie, replacing an engine) is much simpler when you have a spot to rest your
heavy equipment and protect your men from floating away while working, you can
store more ships then you can launch (if I have 12 ships all in racks, I have
12 ships. if I have 12 launch bays, I can have 100 ships, but only 12 at a
time can launch.
they are protcted from meteor strikes, etc...also...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, M Hodgson wrote:
> The rules look ok initially, but obviously I haven't had chance to
Simple, it's much easier for maintenance if you can access the entire craft
rather than certain parts or have to suit up to access the sticky out parts.
Bays also make retrieval much easier since the fighter only has to enter the
bay, maintenance personnel and equpemnt take care of refitting and then
placing the fighter in an appropriate launch position. Replacing external
stores would be a pain in outer space, whereas having a bay allows lots of
places to anchor supplies and equipment. Parasite racks would essentially give
you a one shot launch with no reload capability. A WWI era comparison would be
Zepplins carrying fighters on hooks below. Although this means the fighter can
be carried anywhere a Zepplin can go it turned out not to be so practical
since retrieval was a significant problem. Therefore Aircraft Carriers became
the dominant method of transporting aircraft into battle where land bases were
not available.
Another problem with racks would be fitting non-standard
fighters to them. What if there was a double sized Fury? or one with large
bulky
external stores. These probably wouldn't fit onto a standard rack, but with a
launch bay you can always push them out the airlock...:)
> At 17:53 10/03/97 +0000, you wrote:
The Idea is that bays are used for maintenance/refueling/repair etc. and
can support a badly crippled fighter comming in 'wonky' or to fast. INCOMMING,
COVER,CRASH NET UP!!! Besides you try telling your pilots "Well done lads you
drove off the attackers like heroes......however you cant get back cos the
racks are out.....how much O2 do you have left. QED Racks used on battleship
to frigates (without bays) would only go into battle with a conventional bay
carrier. Although the game is representative you have to consider the real
'human' element to design (Thats why its popular)
Jon (T.C.)
SDL
> Why have fighter bays at all ??? they cost a lot take up lots of mass
In a non-campaign game it makes little sense. In a campaign, you might
want to refuel, rearm, and/or repair fighters after a fight. MUCH easier
in a bay than to do it by EVA. I would say that "racked" fighters may not
be re-launched after recovery during a battle.