> I've never done up the stats for a supership before. The
Actually, I had a question about that limit; A Nimitz class CVN carries
approximately 90 aircraft; why is a fleet carrier limited to only 36? Yeah, I
know this isn't sea warfare, but come on, it's supposed to be a FLEET
carrier....
Another question I had is why are fighter bays only limited to Cap. ships? A
large enough cruiser could carry a squad of fighters.....
> > >Probably to stop people putting together fast, manuvuerable mini
True, but like was said before, the smaller ship will be targeted. As for
someone pointing out that a smaller ship would not have recovery/repair
capability, not true. The U.S.S. North Carolina carried two seaplanes that
were (obviously) deployed and recovered in the water. Taking this example to
FT space, a smaller ship might have to actually "stop" and allow the fighters
to fly back to it fore recovery, possibly to dock on the side rather than land
in a bay. I will admit that most likely the fighters would be dastically
limited in number (say two or three) and probably some sort of light attack
craft. Still, it would be interesting to play out.
> Why not allow smaller escort carriers the ability to carry smaller
Now this I like. It would make since that a patrol/escort carrier would
only have light craft.
Another thought to "weaken" fighter groups would be to expand the endurance
rules. I've noticed that in our fights, the fighters tend to buzz around until
they have a juicy, undefended target to attack before they waste their
"endurance." Maybe have stated that fighters can only fly around for say, six
turns, before having to go back to base.
> The other thing to look at is the Assault Carrier type of craft...
Now there's a thought! The 150 Mass Assault Carrier carrying twelve wings of
craft!
> --- Senator Koella Should go to JAIL !! ---
Oh look, another Tennessean; yeah, but when you're buddies with the police,
the judge, and everybody that could enforce that sentence, what do you think
the odds are? I'd be happy if they'd recall him.
> The simplest definition of a carrier was one posted here several weeks
Launch
> Cons are purchased EXACTLY as per Fire Cons, and a ship can swap Fire
How about we make one more change; ADAFs and PDAFs work like the KV
scatterguns, (ie always hit for 1-6 "kills" against fighters ONLY) and
allow fighters to move AFTER fleet movement. That would take the sting out of
fighter squads, and allow the player better placement of this squads against
cap ships. Hmmmm..... maybe not quite balanced, but I think it's
getting
there.....
Hi All,
I was given a large model the other day as a gift, so for the first time ever
I have a supership for one of my fleets.
I've never done up the stats for a supership before. The normal max for a ship
is six fighter groups. I'd imagine that if you continue extrapolating the
rules you get three fighter groups and an extra launch tube for every full 50
mass over 100. There's nothing I can spot in the rules on the subject.
Comments, anyone? Advice on building superships? Better yet, advice on using
them with a fleet?
Regards,
Got a bit to reply to, so I'm going to do it all in one post in order to cut
down on the mail......
Kevin;
Full Thrust book, page 31, advanced ship design. Fighter Groups can only be
added to Carriers and D/Noughts only. This is in the box at the top,
and I don't really agree with it.
Parasite Fighters; I like the idea. This would work great with the Cruiser
class sizes if you don't feel like mucking up the above ruling on fighter
bays.
Hmmmm..... the general jist of the continuing fighter debate is that a fighter
masses "1", but the mass cost for a group and bay is "6". How about jumping
that up to either "9" or "12" for internally held fighters, and leave it at
"6" for parasite fighters? Or is the Bay considered included in with the
original mass cost of the cap ship? Jon?
Someone mentioned the Arley Burke a while back when talking about destroyers;
a bit off tangent, but I worked with someone who came in one day to say her
uncle Arley just got awarded something from the Navy, something about naming a
ship after him. At that point I said, "What's your Uncle's name?" "Arley
Burke." To which I looked at her incredulously and said, "No, uncle Arley just
got a whole CLASS of destroyer named after him, don't you know he's an
admiral???!!" "Well, I guess so. To me, he's always been the uncle that told
boring stories about serving in the Navy when he was younger....." Oh well,
guess it's just lost on some people...
Does anyone have a list of what the "proper" abbreviations should be for
ships? I know a carrier is CV, and cruiser is CA (I think) and destroyer is
DDG, but what are the others?
and Finally....
PA marines v. rednecks; ya forgot one thing, the rednecks suffer in accuracy
because their rip-roaring drunk, but they do better on their confidence
rolls.:)
A point to remember about USN "Nimitzes" etc is that they can't have anything
remotely like the whole air wing below decks at the same time (RN
"Invincibles" can, and the "Kievs" of blessed memory could too- in both
case by having a dratically smaller air group. I think 36 isn't actually too
far off what a Nimitz could get below decks and still have room to work.
If you need a limitation on fighter groups in superships, you could try "one
extra group allowed per 16 Mass over 100"
Cheers Rob
"
> The problem with heaps of fighters is the pilots, they tend to
Somewhat true, but remember that a fighter group doesn't always mean
6 individual ships with 6-12 crewmen total. It would well be just
one. In my own fleets I represent a fighter group as a single "mecha." I've
used GW's Epic Space Marine troops for the job. Just one on a stand. Which
would indicate only 1 pilot (assuming it's manned at all). And that greatly
would reduce the cost of such a force of arms.
> The mini carrier also would not have the same recovery / repair
Quite true, in addition, the "Fighter bay with Engines" would not be able to
stand up to much enemy fire, requiring it to keep clear of the real fighting
or hoping other ships nearby take the heat. But in raiding operations they can
be much better, a small ship would logically be much harder to detect than a
massive carrier.
For every man, there is but one true love in his life. His only task, is to
recognize it, and cherish it for all time.
"Rutherford, Michael" commented
> Probably to stop people putting together fast, manuvuerable mini
The problem with heaps of fighters is the pilots, they tend to represent a far
greater investment of time in training to produce than the vehicle, as such
are not expendable. Also the social conditioning needed to create a large
group of pilots willing to be expended would have to exist.
The mini carrier also would not have the same recovery / repair capacity
as the fleet carrier.
> Another question I had is why are fighter bays only limited to Cap.
ships? A
> large enough cruiser could carry a squad of fighters.....
Probably to stop people putting together fast, manuvuerable mini carriers that
have nothing but a fighter group on board.
Though I must admit this seems like a viable tactic for Real Life (tm). Use a
cruiser sized ship to provide FTL capability to small expendable
fighers. It is surely easier/quicker to produce a heap of fighters and
replace the odd mini carrier than it is to build a couple of fleet carriers
(or *any* capital ships for that matter).
RE: Jeff Shof's comments
> Actually, I had a question about that limit; A Nimitz class CVN
Yeah,
> I know this isn't sea warfare, but come on, it's supposed to be a FLEET
> Another question I had is why are fighter bays only limited to Cap.
ships? A
> large enough cruiser could carry a squad of fighters.....
To me the scale in FT is flexible, so a fighter group could represent whatever
number you designate, albeit with six little boxes to cross off. Also as far
as I'm aware fighters can be carried by ships smaller than capital classes,
but I think FT implies you can't and MT implies you can. Personally I use a
house rule so that any ship smaller than capital can carry fighters and have
one launch tube, but fighters must comprise at least half of it's weapon
space. I have a couple of 'pocket' carriers in my Oceania fleet.
The main point I'm unsure of concerns what happens to fighter capacity after
100 mass; I can't find any rules that cover it and superships may want more
than six fighter groups. To be frank it wouldn't personally bother me how many
fighter groups you stacked into a ship, but then again I tend to play on a
board which is large enough for ships to 'outrun' fighter groups if you manage
handle the ships well.
Regards,
> On 8 Jul 1997, Aden Steinke wrote:
> >Probably to stop people putting together fast, manuvuerable mini
In modern times you need a larger carrier to carry the more modern (read
large) types of aircraft. The Through Deck Cruisers (British Harrier CVs)
carry aircraft but they don't have the same range/payload of the larger
US CVNs.
One of the other reasons for larger Carriers is to carry the auxillary
aircraft. Long Rang Sub hunters, AEW aircraft, etc. Mainly though, the
increasing size of aircraft has dictated larger decks and more powerful cats.
Why not allow smaller escort carriers the ability to carry smaller light
fighter types? No Heavy Fighters, Interceptors, etc...
> The mini carrier also would not have the same recovery / repair
It should still be able to repair its type of fighter, no?
The other thing to look at is the Assault Carrier type of craft...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Kevin Mc Lean. wrote:
> The main point I'm unsure of concerns what happens to fighter capacity
What's the problem? A fighter bay+fighters masses 6. Stick in as many as
you can fit. It's simply a question of how you design your ships.
A mass 100 CV, btw, can barely get 7 groups with a "not much else" design.
> On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Peggy & Jeff Shoffner wrote:
> Actually, I had a question about that limit; A Nimitz class CVN
Yeah,
> I know this isn't sea warfare, but come on, it's supposed to be a
In WWII American carriers has more carrying capacity than British carriers for
the reason that the Americans were willing to store their aircraft on deck,
whereas the British required that all aircraft carried could be stored within
the armored hangar. That is also the case today where most of the planes are
normally stored on deck with the possibility of fitting everything below deck
if everything is packed as close together as possible (limiting usage) So the
FT example would be a fleet carrier with
6 squadrons internal and 6-12 squadrons externally on racks. Reloading
could only occur in the 6 interior bays though.
> Another question I had is why are fighter bays only limited to Cap.
ships? A
> large enough cruiser could carry a squad of fighters.....
Bays imply the space to launch and recover fighters. In a previous discussion
launch racks for carrying prasite fighters was hypothesized and I believe
several suggestions for rules posted. Although the mass of a
bay is small (6 mass) it may imply a large area - enclosed for
reloading, recovery and launch as well as gneral maintenace etc which may be
far bulkier than the mass implies.
--Binhan
Hi all
"Rutherford, Michael" <MRutherf@nibucorp.telstra.com.au> comments
> The problem for superships w/ fighters is that currently a maximum of 2
Yes, the limit on fighter launching seems an indefensible game mechanic,
assuming armoured fighter bays inside the ship, whats wrong with trading off
greater launch potential for greater vulnerability if assuming the fighters
are perched outside or suchlike (or in huge launch bay complexes running the
length of the ship like B5).
> If you need a limitation on fighter groups in superships, you
The problem for superships w/ fighters is that currently a maximum of 2
fighter groups can be launched at a time, even if the ship in question has a
dozen or more groups on board.
You could say 1 launcher per 100 Mass (2 for carriers) but perhaps a seperate
cost for launchers would be more appropriate.
A carrier could then be defined for the purposes of lauch capacity as
something like 25%+ of mass as fighter bays or launchers. ie weaponry +
other stuff = 25% max.
Military - Non carrier (1 launcher / 100 Mass)
<=50% equipment
Military - Carrier (2 launchers / 100 Mass)
<=25% equipment, >=25% fighter bays + launchers
Non Miliary (0 launchers?) <=25% equipment
> If you need a limitation on fighter groups in superships, you
The simplest definition of a carrier was one posted here several weeks ago,
and is the one I think is best: Launch Controls. We now use it at our Gaming
Club.
For each Launch Control on the ship, it can launch two fighter groups per turn
and can recover one. If a ship doesn't have a Launch control it can launch up
to one group per turn, and recover one every second turn. Launch Cons are
purchased EXACTLY as per Fire Cons, and a ship can swap Fire Cons it is
supplied with for Launch Cons for free.
This way you can trade off offensive capability for Fighter Capability. Using
this house rule I have a Fleet Carrier that has 3 Launch Cons, NO Fire Cons,
six fighter groups, two ADAF's, two PDAF's and two screens for 100 Mass. It
sits up the back of the fleet guarded by other, more offensive ships and is a
fighter platform. Its ADAF's can also provide cover for the guarding ships.
Makes for realistic fleet manouvers.
> Aden Steinke wrote:
I have used a couple of escorte sized carriers in my games, the can only
carrier a single group of fighters, but make excellent raider style craft. the
escort carrier usually serves the same purpose as any other fleet carrier,
which is nothing once the battle has started
> Binhan Lin wrote:
Reloading
> could only occur in the 6 interior bays though.
ships? A
> > large enough cruiser could carry a squad of fighters.....
This sounds like a proposual for a new ship system (perhaps even to have the
honor of being inculded in the next supplement *grin*) and while were thinking
on the costs of an external fighter racks, has anyone thought of the point
costs and balancing issues for FTL capable fighters (as seen in star wars)
> How about we make one more change; ADAFs and PDAFs work like the KV
Hmm. definately not balanced as, on average, it only requires 2 PDAFs to
wipe out a complete fighter group :-(
How's this for something vaguely radical... Discard *DAFs completely, replace
with the following: "B" Batts can fire at half range at attacking fighter
groups like a PDAF. "C" Batts can fire at half range at any fighter group in
range like an ADAF.
ie
"A" batts: anti-ship (12"/24"/36")
"B" batts: anti-ship (12"/24"), PDAF(6"/12")
"C" batts: anti-ship (12"), ADAF(6")
There, look two problems "solved" :-) Now there is a reason to take
something other than "A" batts, and *DAFs aren't wasted space in games without
fighters. Fighters stand a chance but ships can defend themselves.
Wow! So many helpful responses, I guess that's the great thing about this
list - everyone's helpful. I particularly like the ideas about buying
extra
launch tubes like fire cons and one fighter group per 16 mass over 100 -
I'll see if I can get the local group to operate on these principles for
superships...
One thing did puzzle me however, and that was that a lot of people seemed to
think that ships carrying fighters had to be capital class. I've found things
that implied that and the opposite in the rules, but I've never seen anything
concrete. Can anyone tell me the page or alternately if it developed out of
web page discussions?
Thanks for all the feedback on this matter.
Regards,
> Someone mentioned the Arley Burke a while back when talking about
"Arley
> Burke." To which I looked at her incredulously and said, "No, uncle
btw, just for accuracy's sake, it's Arleigh Burke. ;-)
> Does anyone have a list of what the "proper" abbreviations should be
I used to have a list. I think there's a list somewhere on the web, but
naturally I don't have the url handy. :-/
> and Finally....
> rolls. :)
works for me!
Mk
> Jeff Shoffner wrote:
Here's some I collected from past posts to the list and what not...
Typical Ship Designations:
GB-Gunboat
ES-Escort
CT-Corvette
PAS-Perimeter Action Ship
FF-Frigate
DD-Destroyer
CL-Light Cruiser
CE-Escort Cruiser
CA-Heavy Cruiser
CA2-Large Cruiser
BC,CB-Battle Cruiser
BB-Battleship
DN-Dreadnought
BDN-Battle Dreadnought
SDN-Super Dreadnought
CVE-Escort Carrier
CVL-Light Carrier
CVA-Attack Carrier
Typical modifiers:
A-Attack,Armored,Assault,Auxiliary
B-Base,Battle,Boat
C-Command,Courier
D-Defense,Dromedary
E-Escort
F-Fast,Fighter,Fleet
G-Guided Missile,Gun
H-Heavy
I-Inspection,Interceptor
J-Jump
L-Lancer,Launch,Light
M-Missile,Monitor
N-Nuclear,Needle
O-Oiler,Orbital Bombardment,Outpost
P-Patrol
Q-Q-ship
R-Raider
S-Scout,Shuttle,Strike,Support,System
T-Tanker,Tender,Torpedo,Transport
X-Experimental
This is only a partial list based on NATO designations and material found in
sci-fi and wargaming.
Check out a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships for an excellent reference on ship
types and more. Janes can be accessed via the Web at:
http://www.janes.com/