Re: SPOILER ALERT/PARASITE FIGHTER RACKS

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
having
> read the first few lines, thought what the hell and read the rest
anyway
> :)

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
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.

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. ^_^

		    Aaron Teske
		    Mithramuse+@cmu.edu