Re: New fighter rules

On Mon, 5 May 1997 09:57:40 -0400, you wrote:

>Marshall Grover writes:
>
>@:) >On the subject of fighters, I would like to see "external
racks"....
>@:) 
>@:) The externals would be very vulnerable to damage
>
>  In fact I would suggest that any externally carried objects take
>damage before the ship in all circumstancs.

A fighter clamped to the ship's hull would be no more vulnerable to
"sandcaster" damage than a fighter flying in space, in fact, maybe
even less so since you can clamp them to the hull behind a projection
(like the wing mirrors...), which would shield them from the forward
aspect. Well, at least that's the _theory_.

You would still need a carrier to do the reloading (before battle, so
don't get caught at anything less than alert status). The racks just
mean you can carry extra fighters.

However the usual use I enivsage would be to increase the _range_ of
the fighters, not the quantity. Your carrier/base transfers a squadron
to the destroyer's racks, the destroyer tows them into range, releases
them, then joins the combat. The fighters fly back to their base or
carrier under their own power. Sort of like the "shuttle tecnhique",
it would increase the range at which a fighter strike could be
mounted, to double or more (depending on the acceleration difference
between the destroyer and the carrier).

If external racks are taboo for you you could make a "fighter pallet"
that did the same thing, but was TOWED by a ship. The pallet might
even contain a little landing bay allowing you to re-arm (once).
However, I do not like this idea.

Sandy Goh (sandy@artica.demon.co.uk)