RE: Parasite Racks, External Mounts and Reactive Armour (Was Re: SPOILER

During one of my first creative burst of weapon and system designing fot
FT, shortly after I'd played the game a few times, I came up with the
idea of a 'small craft boom' that could be used by vessels to
launch/recover fighters, gigs, launches and other small craft. I figured
with the number of unstreamlined ships, packed to the gunwales with
weapons, there had to be some form of interface transport. Picture the
booms kinda like a cross between a boarding ramp in an airport and a
World War One Biplane launch hook on a Zeppelin. Pretty easy to launch,
but I wouldn't want to have to do the piloting under fire to recover.

Small Craft Boom
Mass 2, Cost 5 (per craft)
Allows launch/recovery of small craft (fighters included.) 
Launch as normal rules, recovery time suggested as 1d6 turns
Any hits to a ship with small craft booms require a threshold check for
all booms mounted at a '6' (or less if you aren't generous)

More expensive in the long run than dedicated fighter bays, but kind of
'realistic' IMHO.

Also, External ordnance racks, same kind of deal, somewhat influenced by
Starfire XO's

Mass varies with the size of the ordnance installed, but a good rule is
.5 the mass of the weapons installed.
Only missiles, mines, scatterguns and submunitions packs (relatively low
powered, self-contained, or 'unguided' weapons) may be so mounted.
A ship that exceeds its limit in weapons percentage (e.g. military
ships: 50% 'civilian' ships: 10%) is penalized 1 thrust point in
maneuvering for every 10% over the limit. (I imagine an exception to
this would be a ftl or system tug which could theoretically mount it's
own mass in weapons on xo racks, hmmmmmmm....) racks can be jettisoned
with a written order, this takes 1 round to complete. Any hits to a ship
with xo racks require a threshold check for all racks mounted at a '6'
(again, less if you aren't feeling generous) or they are destroyed (if
you are really mean, destroyed racks cannot be 'popped off' and drag the
ship down for the rest of the game)

Well ? Whatta-ya think ?

>----------
>From:	Allan Goodall[SMTP:agoodall@sympatico.ca]
>Sent:	Monday, March 10, 1997 2:54 PM
>To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
>Cc:	George,Eugene M
>Subject:	Parasite Racks, External Mounts and Reactive Armour (Was
Re:
>SPOILER
>
>At 02:46 PM 3/10/97 -0500, Mark Kochte wrote:
>
>>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).
>
>I agree. There have to be some restrictions on the use of these racks.
>First, I'd make the fighters vulnerable to damage when the mothership
is hit
>if they haven't been launched. Maybe make a threshold check for the
fighters
>whenever the ship takes ANY damage. For instance, assume the parasite
rack
>is mounted on a ship with damage boxes of 4/4/4.  The ship takes 3
points of
>damage, leaving one point before the first threshold check is made.
However,
>the parasite racks (with fighters) have to make a threshold check (roll
less
>than 6 to save) IMMEDIATELY since they are vulnerable. Second turn, the
ship
>takes 1 more point of damage. This forces normal threshold checks (the
>parasite rack makes one check, not two, this turn). Turn 3 the ship
takes
>one more point of damage and the parasite rack takes another threshold
check
>(rolling 1 to 4 in order to save it). Turn 4 the ship takes 4 points of
>damage, leaving 3 points left. The second threshold was passed. The
parasite
>racks only make one roll, but because the second threshold point was
>EXCEEDED, they are saved only on a roll of 1, 2, or 3. 
>Second, I'd make the fighters impossible to reload during combat. 
Assume
>that the loading process is lengthy compared to combat (or even
impossible
>without some sort of tender nearby).
>
>Third, these racks should cost NO mass (or a nominal mass of 1 due to
>placement restrictions). 
>So: PARASITE RACK - Mass 1 or 0, Cost ?
> - can be mounted on any cruiser size ship and up
> - fighters are vulnerable and can't be picked up
> - fighters launch as per usual
>
>Any comments? Any ideas on point costs?
>
>This suggests some interesting systems. How about external missile
racks, or
>external pulse torpedo mounts? Again, they would have negligible mass,
but
>would have limited shots and might be damaged when ANY damage is done.
>EXTERNAL MOUNTS could be interesting systems.
>
>This idea of a system taking damage along with the hull makes me think
of:
>
>REACTIVE ARMOUR  - Mass 0, Cost?
> - works like Kra'vak armour, but only against non-beam weapons
> - any non-beam damage causes an automatic threshold check (the armour
is
>damaged as it deflects incoming damage)
> - it takes normal threshold checks like any other system
> - level 2 reactive armour drops by one level when a threshold check is
made
>(similar to the ship's drive taking damage and dropping by half thrust)
>
>These ideas are just off the top of my head. Any/all criticism is
welcomed.
>
>Allan Goodall:  agoodall@sympatico.ca "You'll want to hear about my new
>obsession.
> I'm riding high upon a deep depression.  I'm only happy when it
rains."    -
>Garbage
>
>