RE: Carriers & Fighter Capacity

Some ideas:

You can sort of balance this by varying the starting distance of the
fleets.  Before the game, each side decides on their starting velocity. 
They then compare the sensor/ECM numbers to determine a modifier.  The
higher side gets to add or subtract the difference from the range in
turns and is considered the "attacker".  Then both sides roll 2d6,
subtract the lower number from the higher, add or subtract the
attacker's modifer and the difference is the range in turns at the
attackers starting velocity (minimum range of 36 units).  This would
give reason to beef up sensors, ECM and allow for the possibility that
your carriers might be engaged before being able to launch fighters.

Some assumptions: If the attacker chooses a high velocity, it is more
likely to picked up further away, so if you choose to have a high
starting velocity to defeat fighters, the more likely the opposing fleet
is going to pick you up at a distance and have time to launch fighters. 
Conversely if you pick a slower velocity, the fighters will have enough
speed to engage you, but you might catch them in their launch bays.

Really one should play with all aspects of the game - sensors, ECM,
supply and logistics, strategic replacement and such to truly balance
the game.  As is often the case, small, limited-use battles will
highlight a tactical advantage of a particular tactic or system that may
or may not be viable in the larger scheme of things.

For instance, if you look at the B-2 bomber, it's a remarkable piece of
equuipment and highly capable of penetrating into enemy airspace and
delivering a payload.  If you only gamed the section where the B-2 drops
it's PGM, it's practically unbeatable.	When you look at the overall
picture of procurement cost, vulnerability to the elements and basing
requirements, it's not such a good buy.  You have to be wary of people
who insist on constantly including certain systems and excluding others,
they may have an ulterior motive in removing the best defense against
their chosen weapon system.  

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bell, Brian K (Contractor) [mailto:Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 7:49 AM
> To: 'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'
> Subject: RE: Carriers & Fighter Capacity
> 
> 
> Try using:
> Each Launch Bay: 12mass (accounts for doors/corridors to hangers)
> Each Hanger: 6 mass
> Each hanger must be attached to a launch bay or another hanger
> (daisy-chained). It takes 1 turn to move fighters from a 
> hanger to a launch
> bay or another hanger. Done at the beginning of the fighter 
> launch sequence
> (so cannot move one up if there is a fighter in the launch 
> bay). Launch bay
> may hold 1 fighter unit by itself.
> 
> Unbalancing (getting fighters at reduced mass) in games where 
> fighters can
> start pre-launched  or have multiple turns before engaging 
> enemy ships.
> 
> Or you could have 1 Op Deck for all fighters (would make them more
> vulnerable to threshold checks) and multiple launch bays. But the same
> problem exists -- games where fighters are launched at the start.
> 
> ---
> Brian Bell
> bbell1@insight.rr.com
> ICQ: 12848051
> AIM: Rlyehable
> YIM: Rlyehable
> Cygnus X1.info
> http://www.cygnusx1.info/
> ---
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Bilderback [mailto:bbilderback@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 15:22
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: FT: Carriers & Fighter Capacity
> 
> 
> I've been considering the rules for fighters.  Under the 
> current rules, a 
> ship can store, launch, and recover 6 fighters for 9 mass.  
> That means that 
> every flight has it's own hangar, launch facility, and 
> recovery facility.  
> It's a good thing modern carriers don't work quite like that. 
>  Has anyone 
> ever tried any alternate rules for separate storage/shared 
> launch & Recovery
> 
> for dedicated carriers in FT?  I was thinking of something 
> like making each 
> "Hangar bay" worth 5 mass per flight, and each "Operations 
> deck" worth 4 
> mass. The carrier could carry as many fighters as it had 
> bays, but only 
> launch and recover as many flights per turn as it has ops 
> decks - sort of 
> like the difference between SML's and SMR's (Only Different). 
>  This would 
> make it remain more economical to buy full 9-mass fighter 
> flights for BB's, 
> DN,'s, etc, but give a litttle incentive to designing good dedicated 
> carriers.  Thoughts from the list?
> 
> 3B^2
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>