John, You forgot to add TORPEDO capability!
> points mass
Add twin torpedoes (double damage)
+36 points, +1 Mass
Current total: 186 points, 10 Mass per 6 fighter squadron.
Just for balance, round it off to 200 points/squadron.
This brings the cost of a Fleet carrier with 4 Squadrons to 1367 points.
'Neath Southern Skies
*********************
Smeartrek: These are the voyages of the Starship Bubbles. It's continuing
mission, to destroy new worlds, outbreed alien civilizations & to boldly go
where not even idiot's dare to venture.
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
> -----Original Message-----
> ROBERTSON,Brendan wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> > I would be interested in hearing any reports, if anyone
Brendan, In all honesty I never considered adding any sort of expendable
weapons to the fighter, I was trying to stay (more or less) within
an (almost) believeable FT build schedule. Additional weapons
would have required more mass, then more thrust, more fuel, more structure, in
an ever increasing spirial. In spite of all the programmers claiming that
anything can be
done if given enough code. The real bottom line is a choice of
only three functions: attack, defend, drone survival. All missions fall into
one of these three catagories. Do you wish to abuse your friends with this
type of monster? It is a shame I spent so much time on this project, I haven't
made part two ready yet, and I have to work this weekend.
Bye for now. JTL
> ROBERTSON,Brendan wrote:
Dear God.
How come I see a comparison to the development history of the F15 here?
(8-)
Actually, on a FT note... one thing that's kind of bothered me about the
points system (actually, most games are like this) is that systems stacked on
systems usually result in a cost calculate arithmetically, as opposed to
geometrically or even exponentially. As per RL, it always has felt to me that
the closer to the edge you get, the more you should pay through the nose for
it.
I don't have a concrete suggestion though; I just have to talk to my Defence
Minister and see if we can squeeze some money out for some
Superdrones. (8-)
J.
Don't forget that 3 PDAFs could potentially wipe out the entire squadron in
one round. Let's see... 3 PDAFs=9 points, 6 superdrones=200 points. Looks like
a fair tradeoff to me.
Also - Fleet carrier of 1200 points against balanced fleet = dead fleet
carrier, with the potential of losing every drone.
'Neath Southern Skies
*********************
> -----Original Message-----
Not really. I'm not particularly fond of fighters, as it gives opposing
vessels the opportunity to use all their armament during the game. If
you don't field fighters, your opponent has wasted 10-20% of his ship's
mass (although the flip side is you don't get a fighter screen).
'Neath Southern Skies
*********************
Smeartrek: These are the voyages of the Starship Bubbles. It's continuing
mission, to destroy new worlds, outbreed alien civilizations & to boldly go
where not even idiot's dare to venture.
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
> -----Original Message-----
> On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, ROBERTSON,Brendan wrote:
> Don't forget that 3 PDAFs could potentially wipe out the entire
This gets back to the 'supertank' thread we had last month (I think it was
called "Helltank/Helltank Destroyer") in which it was concluded, more or
less, that in a fight between a 'balanced' combined-arms force and a
couple of freak-tanks, the balanced force would win...the same rational
applies to these SuperDrone fighters - I'll take a balanced 1200pt task
force, you take this SuperDrone Fleet CV - you'll lose, betcha...
Supervehicles, as another poster pointed out, thrive in 'hothouse'
enviroments - the feudal, restrained BattleTech universe, fancy
armour/drives/etc - but in a system w/ 'realistic' rules these
freak-vehicles are dead meat...
Even in a 'hothouse' game universe, if you use a strategic campaign
setting, I'd rather have half-a-dozen ships/units than one superunit -
you can be in one place, while I'm in half a dozen, probing and raiding...
To finally get to my point, the SuperDrone is merely the
supertank/Orge/etc translated into FT terms, with most of the drawbacks
such units have...
> ROBERTSON,Brendan wrote:
Actually, that points up one of the problems with the FT fighter system; you
can make fighters faster, fight ships better, fight fighters better, and do
all other sorts of neat things, but you can't make them more survival through
better jamming equipment or better armor.
Hmm, I don't remember now... does the heavy fighter option increase
survivability against anti-fighter weapons?
If superdrones were designed and built, one of the things they should
definately be is more survivable. (Either active or passive defenses...)
J.
> Brian Burger wrote:
Supervehicles can survive and become dominant in an environment where their
size is also an indication of their survivability i.e. the vehicle becomes so
large that it could take damage that would wipe out an equivalent squadron.
For example, most space games end up favouring large ships over small ones,
because large ships can carry shielding that is lightly, or even not damaged
by smaller weapons.
> Even in a 'hothouse' game universe, if you use a strategic campaign
Depends on my mission as well. If I'm on defence, give me a pair
of Mk XXXII Bolos and stay away from my planet. (8-)
> To finally get to my point, the SuperDrone is merely the
If the SuperDrone is as fragile as a conventional FT fighter, sure. If a
SuperDrone is much tougher, then its a whole new brawl game.
J.
> Hmm, I don't remember now... does the heavy fighter option increase
You are correct. It gives the equivilent of level 1 screens to the fighter
group if they are heavy fighters.
IMHO, fighters are powerfull already. Consider the following in compairson to
a ship with the same mass:
+ Faster (12 vs. 8)
+ Invulnerable to normal weapons (must use *DAF to attack)
+ Higher damage Potential (6 C Beams vs 5 C Beams [non-FTL ship], 3
w/ FTL)
- Shorter Endurance
- Morale Check
- Non-FTL w/o Carrier
> On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Brian Bell wrote:
> IMHO, fighters are powerfull already. Consider the following in
If you're talking about vanilla rules, I beg to disagree. The MAXIMUM 12"
speed is the greatest limit fighters have -- if the opponent so wishes
(and doesn't care about the additional hassle of flying off the board), he can
pretty much ignore fighters by setting initial velocity high enough.
Sigh... I don't want to get into this again.