Re: More fighters + (real) Java Space Dock!

>>  Hiya y'all.  It's time for my next question about fighters.  I don't
>think this is really covered by the rules, so I'm mostly just
>wondering what you do in your campaigns.  There are a bunch of
>different types of fighters: regular, fast, heavy, interceptor,
>attack, diet, long-range, torpedo.  My question is whether you combine
>these fighter types and if so, what do you allow and what not?
snip
>  So what do you do?

I think many people here feel that the costs of multiple capacity
fighters
mount up so fast that they become their own handicap- they cease to be
"attrition units" as they become too expensive to risk.  

It might be an idea to think of the capacities basic/enhanced/superior,
along the lines of other GZG games, and use a fighter design subsystem
like
Steve Gibson's excellent infantry design subsystem for DSII, in which
you
choose from "menus" of values for movement, firepower etc and add up the
points for each to give the cost of the element.

snip

>  Say, that brings up a third point.  If I always round up the amount
>of mass I can use for systems (again, this is mentioned in FT in their
>discussion of non-FTL ships), why don't all of my ships have odd
>masses one point below the normal mass.  Why ever build a mass 36
>ship when a mass 35 ship can hold just as much stuff?

Personally, I think using odd-numbered mass that way smacks of the
anorak :-)
My self-designed ships are a mixture of attempts at optimized designs
(eg
superdestroyers), and beasties "I just sort of like" (eg my "King James
IV"
(ex-"Indefatigable") Battlecruisers).

Rob "I've never owned a snorkel parka but I did have a duffel-coat" Paul

Rob Paul
NERC Institute of Virology 
Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3SR	  Tel. (01865) 512361
rkp@mail.nerc-oxford.ac.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
			 "Auld an' bald!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--