Re: New fighter rules

At 02:55 AM 5/5/97 GMT, you wrote:
>On Sun, 04 May 1997 21:21:11 -0400, you wrote:
>The recovery equipment is needed. How else would you get the fighters
>back? Have a second carrier follow you around? Might as well put
>everything on one ship.

Maybe kamikazie style missions, But I was actually thinking of fighter
transports. Loadthen up with fighters at the home world and transfer
them
to a starbase.

>
>By the way, they did want the B25s back. They planned to land in
>China. Only the Japanese really flew suicide missions. The
>CAM/Hurricat ships would have been a better example. (Converted
>merchantmen with one fighter plane that launched via catapult. The
>pilot would ditch the plane over the convoy and hope to be picked up).

I didn't say that it was a suicide mission, only that the carriers could
not recover the b-25s if they had tried to land. (I didn't know about
the
CAM, but that is a much better example.)

>On the subject of fighters, I would like to see "external racks" for
>fighters allowing them to be "clamped" onto the hull of a ship. Said
>ship then tows the fighters into range, releases them, and brings them
>back afterwards. Of course, it cannot rearm the fighters but they
>would provide a useful boost to firepower provided that a carrier was
>also in the squadron to re-arm and repair the things.

The externals would be very vulnerable to damage, esp. from the
sandacaster
that was going around last week. just imagine all your fighters being
sandblasted off your ship. real useful for FF and DD classes though.

>This system could also be used to carry missiles "under the wings"
>like airplanes.

That's an idea I really like! You would need a starbase to reload, that
would take care of the 40 pt boat strike force in campaign games.

Marshall
 Marshall Grover

"A Jedi's greatest enemy is himself." - Obi-Wan Kenobi