Re: Parasite Racks, External Mounts and Reactive Armour (Was Re: SPOILER ALERT/PARASITE FIGHTER RACKS)

At 09:58 PM 3/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Giving PRs a mass
>of 1, are you thinking per fighter, or per set of racks? I'm thinking
per
>fighter, and might be more willing to entertain 1 Mass per 3 P-Racks.
Why
>1 Mass/3 P-Racks? Well...they aren't full-blown hangar bays, so don't
have
>the resources hangar bays have, but to prevent people just *dumping*
P-Racks
>on their freighters, the 1 Mass/3 P-Racks gives some inherent penalty.

I thought 1 or 0 mass because they wouldn't take up any/a lot of space
on
the ship. Still, there should be some limitation on the number that can
be
mounted based on the ship's external circumference. Perhaps one per
escort,
two per cruiser, etc.

>You'd also want to limit their uses in games, somehow, otherwise
*every*one's
>gonna want their ships to have them (I wouldn't, because they don't fit
my
>general ship designs, but I would be tempted to create a couple of
specialized
>'fighter tender' ships to fill this roll).

I've noticed in most games I've played that usable mass is more the
limiting
factor than points. These racks should be expensive enough that mounting
them on freighters isn't as cost effective as mounting them on warships.
That would discourage their use. I think they would only be of real use
in a
one-off scenario or in a campaign. In both cases, the expense is worth
it in
order to catch the enemy unawares and unprepared. This ties in with the
B5
episode that clearly shows they were used for subterfuge and not as a
viable
alternative to other ships.

>Shades of Starfire.  ;-)

Maybe subconsciously. But it's been a lot of years since I've played
Starfire.

>Allan, your snailmail arrived	today. :)

Great.

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