Re: Fighters and Hangers

[Jared Hilal <jlhilal@xxxxxxxxx>]

RE: hanger and launch bays
After lots of explanation and critique that I actually found quite
helpful,
--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> > >With other choices for the bay masses and costs - eg. if you
reduce
> > >the mass of the launch/recovery bays enough, ... you can easily
> > >make the choice trivial in the other direction instead, but it
> > >is very difficult to create a "multi-way" system where these 
> > >choices *aren't* trivial :-(
>
> >These were the numbers that we have used without anyone trying to 
> >"break" it.
>
> I suspected as much. The problem is that this kind of design systems 
> give the munchkins too many variables to play with; it is extremely 
> difficult to keep them all balanced - and the munchkins will very 
> quickly find the ones which aren't.

Well, as a customer of GZG, here is the bottom line of my input:
My group dislikes the basic FT treatment of fighter bays.

The main complaints are that we would like a treatment where there can
be (minimum options): a large, multi-group, variable-size (# of groups)
"hanger area" in the interior of the ship treated as a protected system
and an exposed "launch and recovery area" of variable size.  Setting
references would fit SW, B5 and BSG.  This contrasts with the current
scheme where each group has its own exposed bay that serves all
functions.

We would be happy with any system, even one like:
Hanger MASS = 9 +8 +7 +6 +6 etc.
Launch & recovery MASS = 3 +2 +1 +1 or 3 +2 +2


J