RE: Hanger Bay question
From: "Christopher Congdon" <codo-1@m...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:24:04 -0500
Subject: RE: Hanger Bay question
Just make it so that the fighter bay can't hold small craft. All those
pesky
reloading and repair gantries built for fighters gets in the way of
having a
large open area for larger 'small craft'
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Charles Stanley
Taylor
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 12:32
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Hanger Bay question
In message <v04003a1eb58566cbada6@[63.201.229.94]>
Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com> wrote:
[snip my old message]
>
> These are by no means official answers, but I'll give it a stab...
>
> I would say that if the bay held something other then fighters
originally,
> then it could "hold" but not rearm or resupply fighters.
Hmm... so if you have a MASS 9 small craft hanger - cost 27, you _could_
carry a 6 fighter squadron, but not re-supply it - while if you have a
MASS 9 fighter hanger - cost 27, you could carry the fighters, _and_
resupply them, _or_ you could carry up to 6 MASS in small craft.
I'm not sure I like that - identical cost & mass gives different levels
of functionality depending which you choose.
It could be that individual fighters are _less_ than 1 MASS - FB1 just
states 1.5 MASS per fighter - without indicating what proportion is
fighter, and what is launch/recover/resupply equipment (LRR).
We could say that a fighter is a MASS 0.5 craft, and that 1 MASS per
fighter is LRR - in which case a MASS 9 fighter hanger would only have
room for a MASS 3 small craft.
or, if you want to differentiate between normal and heavy fighters -
normal are MASS 0.5, heavy (and maybe long range and torp) are MASS 0.75
- LRR is MASS 0.75 per fighter. Thus a MASS 9 fighter hanger would have
room for 4.5 MASS of small craft.
Anyone agree, disagree, comments?
>
> Squadrons have been pretty firmly established at 6 fighters. Though
you
> could allow a house design that departs from that norm, I'd be
hesitant to
> allow it.
>
Well, I largely propsed the idea to enable conversions of various genre
craft that have under-sized fighter complements - like the White Stars.
Can't think of any other examples ATM.
>
> Schoon
>
>
Charles.
--