Prev: Re: Kinda [OT]Re: Battlefleet Gothic Demo Day Next: FT] Amish in the stars.

Re: Planet-Based Fighters

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@p...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:52:42 -0800
Subject: Re: Planet-Based Fighters

Izenberg, Noam wrote:
> Oerjan wrote:
> > Unless you pay for the ground base as well (treat as a
> > "carrier" with no engines and no systems except the bay), I doubt a
> mere
> > 12 pts would be sufficient to balance them :-(
> Ah, there's the rub. One of the rationales for planet-based fighters
> cheap defense - not to have to build an entire ship around the
> I suppose for balance you _would_ have to pay for a fighter base of
> kind, though. An equivalent cost in points, at least. Thugh here's
> we can start addressing the sticky distinction between point costs for
> game balance and point costs for ship construction. You _could_ base
> 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
> your game, though. But if you are, planet-based fighters look to be
> vastly superior to carrier based, construction-cost wise, for
> defense.
> Noam
> Noam R. Izenberg

     In the current campaign (Camp98), the problem is solved by tying
the production value of the planet to the number of fighters the planet
can support.   This plus the fact that all production of items for the 
campaign occure in an orbital facility prevent the replacement of
fighters on and on and on...  .

Bye for now,
John L.

Prev: Re: Kinda [OT]Re: Battlefleet Gothic Demo Day Next: FT] Amish in the stars.