Re: SPOILER ALERT/PARASITE FIGHTER RACKS

External Fighter Racks Topic below - no spoilers here

>The rules look ok initially, but obviously I haven't had chance to give
>them a go yet.  A question though
>
>Why have fighter bays at all ???  they cost a lot take up lots of mass
>etc....  With racks like this about I see no reason to bother....
>
>Aside from the protection it gives to fighters, what is the advantage
of a
>full bay ?  Am I missing something ?  Fighters are unlikely to be on
the
>racks when fired upon anyway as the whole point is they are there to
>defend the carrying vessel.

Well, without a fighter bay, ye ol' fighter jocks will have to sit in
their fighters for the *entire* duration while they are out. Also,
fighters
cannot be serviced properly hanging from grapple hooks/piggyback
systems.
Definitely not from jury-rigged ones. By the time you go through the
hoops
and hassles of trying to service a fighter outside of a ship/dedictated
fighter bay, you might as well have had the bay.

Going on a bad analogy, why are there dedicated carrier ships in wet
navies?
What purpose does it serve to have hangar bays for fighters on these
ships?
You can prolly draw parallels between the functions and duties of
fighters
bays on a starship, and those of hangar bays in wet navies.

Thinking about it more I would say that the piggyback/parasite system is
a one-shot deal, to give non-carriers limited ability to carry fighters,
but only over short distances (ie, not over a period of days, or the
inherent life support duration of the fighter(s) in question). Also,
Hooking back up should be more of a pain (this is something that could
easily be done with base facilities).

Mk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Only the bravest try where eagles and angels dare to fly
<*>