Prev: Re: Q Ship Module, was Re Jump Ships Next: Anyone Missing?

Re: Planet-Based Fighters

From: "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@j...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:49:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Planet-Based Fighters

Re: Jared's edurance cost/booster pack solution:
	That's great. Should work well.

As for Los's comments, that why I was initially thinking they way I was
- the difference between say the space-only Starfury and the
atmosphere/space Thunderbolt. On the one hand, I think FT's level of
abstraction should allow Jared's simplified rule. On the other hand,
requiring planet based fighters to be their own breed is also logical
and an easy change to make. 

Hmph, I can see compelling rationale either way. Now I'm stuck again.

Oerjan wrote:
> Unless you pay for the ground base as well (treat as a fragile-hulled
> "carrier" with no engines and no systems except the bay), I doubt a
> 12 pts would be sufficient to balance them :-(

Ah, there's the rub. One of the rationales for planet-based fighters is
cheap defense - not to have to build an entire ship around the fighters.
I suppose for balance you _would_ have to pay for a fighter base of some
kind, though. An equivalent cost in points, at least. Thugh here's where
we can start addressing the sticky distinction between point costs for
game balance and point costs for ship construction. You _could_ base 10
fighter squadrons an a salt flat with a couple barracks and currugated
plastic hangars at a truly minimum actual cost, but the _balance_ cost
would pretty much like having a thrust 0 CV with 10 squadrons floating
in space. This is only important if you're trying to work Economics into
your game, though. But if you are, planet-based fighters look to be
vastly superior to carrier based, construction-cost wise, for planetary


Noam R. Izenberg

Prev: Re: Q Ship Module, was Re Jump Ships Next: Anyone Missing?