Prev: Re: [FT]-Max Number od Weapons Next: Re: [FT]-Max Number od Weapons

Re: [FT] Tug confusion (and Tug vs. Bay)

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@p...>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:36:53 -0800
Subject: Re: [FT] Tug confusion (and Tug vs. Bay)

Dean Gundberg wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Reasons not to have parasite fighters:
> 
> The fighters/clamps are easily damaged by enemy fire.
...Snip...
XXX
     The fighters are as easily damaged as any system that has an 
external aspect to it.	Weapons, FCS, sensors, and thrust all have
the same disadvantage.	 This rule if invoked should also apply to
all systems that are external.	 JTL
XXX
> 
> Fighters can not re-attach/land during a scenario.  
...Snip...
XXX
     I have never seen fighters able to perform a re-arm during a game,
so this is not much of a disadvangage.	 JTL
XXX
> Unless it is a special situation (like the Black Omegas) I would say
that
> the pilots of parasite fighters would be worse than those from a true
> carrier.  If I was a good fighter pilot, I'd rather have a bay to land
in
> and have my fighter worked on than be assigned as a parasite fighter
jockey
> who may not have a clamp to fly back to after buzzing around the edge
of the
> battle after my endurance ran out, then only to have to wait my turn
to get
> my fighter worked on in the modified cargo bay.
XXX
     If I understand the logic behin this thought: 
1) All parasite pilots should be turkeys in the rules, with maybe
   one normal out of 6 sq..
2) All carrier pilots should be half turkey and half normals.
3) All ground based aerospace pilots (not carrier qualified) should be
normal,
   with maybe one ace out of 6.
4) All fighter pilots (non-aerospace capable) are half normal and half
aces.
5) All non-fighter pilots (I.E. transport) are all aces.
I can live with that!  (But only as the attacker.)  (It's a long dull
joke, OK.) JTL
XXX
> 
> Personally I don't think there would be an easy way to clamp on the
fighter
> and allow a hatch for the pilot to get inside and allow for refueling.
 That
> stuff would take more space than just clamps and increase the clamps
> fragility.
XXX
     The process is the same as in the hanger bay of the carrier.  
Todays fighters
carry refueling probes, why not the FT fighters.   The FT fighters carry
energy
based weapons, and need to be 'recharged' before use.	This can be done
at the 
same time as fueling thru a seperate connection, or use some surface
contact
energy transfer.   Pilot exit can be accomplished thru a low pressure
collar
around the front of the fighter, inflated when the fighter docks.   JTL
XXX
> 
> Dean

Bye for now,
John L.


Prev: Re: [FT]-Max Number od Weapons Next: Re: [FT]-Max Number od Weapons