RE: IF Fleet / Non-FTL Fleet / Fighter Fleet

  It doesn't break the fleet book. You just need to ensure that in any
engagement you count the cost/mass/value etc. of the tender/tug.
  Does it unbalance a scenario? Not if the scenario is written
correctly.
Ships from the opposing force could try to "blow through" the non-FTL
ships
to attack the tender/tug. If the tender/tug has additional ships
protecting
it, they need to be added to the cost/points/mass/etc. of the side that
is
using the tender/tug. For one-off game, insist that the tug/tender
remain on
the board or be counted as "lost".

IF / LLAR fleet thoughts:
  Since we do not know what the miniatures look like, I think that the
non-FTL idea has more merit (unless Jon thought about this already and
designed the miniatures with launch bays).
  Perhaps the LLAR fleets could be carrier based when Jon gets around to
designing miniatures for them? The LLAR are primarily mercenaries (I
would
grant them a system somewhere on the map to call home). Fighters are
easier
and cheaper to replace than small ships (corvettes and frigates).
Fighters
are also more flexible than smaller ships. 

Fighter Groups:
  Someone suggested allowing smaller groups of fighters. I have tried
this
and it _DOES_ break the game. Since PDS attacks fighter groups, 6 groups
of
2 fighters will overwhelm a PDS defense quicker than 2 groups of 6
fighters.
If we allow smaller groups of fighters, we will have to change the way
that
PDS works. It will have to lump all fighters into one group; roll all
PDS;
and subtract destroyed fighters at random from the collected fighters.
This
gets really _messy_ when you add in Hvy fighters and missiles. 
  Below is the smallest FTL carrier that can be produced under current
rules. 

Alexander class Auxiliary Carrier 
Bob Mackenzie
Tech: Human (FB) 
Govt: ~PRM 
Mass: 12 
Cost: 45 (63) 
Clas: Auxillery Carrier (AuxCV) 
Hull: Fragile 
Strm: None 
FTL: Std 
MD: 2 
Armr: - 
Damg: 1; 1 
Crew: 1 
Sens: Std 
Systems:
 Fighter Bay 
Notes: The Red Banner Fleet (RBF) has never been much interested in
fighters
considering the mass taken for hangers much better used for weapons. The
Alexander class was an attempt to field fighters for as little "wasted"
mass
as possible. It had some success against light forces when deployed with
Cossack and Dnepr class ships but its inadequate thrust prevents it from
being deployed on "probe and run" recce missions. 

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/	    
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Books [SMTP:books@mail.state.fl.us]
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 8:00 PM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: IF Fleet
> 
> Laserlight wrote:
[snip]
> > This [carrier based fleet] makes for very inefficient ships, though.
 My
> IF
> > designs (which I posted a day or two ago) assume the
> > following:
> > a) FTL drives are less available to the IFN than to the
> > major powers.  Therefore many warships have no FTL drives,
> > and are hauled from system to system by tugs or tenders.
> > Ships with FTL drives tend to belong to the Sultanate rather
> > than the amirs (who can be somewhat independent-minded).
> 
> This breaks the fleet book.  Non-FTL ships are much more powerful
> on a BPV cost than FTL ships.  I would guess this is why ALL the
> national fleets are FTL in the fleet book.
> 
> Roger