Re: FT-Fighters and launch bays

Roger has a point. The combat cost of various
systems is at issue. The cost of cargo bays is
0 because it doesn't affect the battle. If you
allow a noncombat system to affect the battle,
it's cost should be at least 3xMASS just as the
fighter bay is costed. (note that even cargo
costs *something* because you still pay for the
general mass of the whole ship).

So, you could theoretically trade off slow 
launches for some minor point savings (however
you explain it) but I suspect it wouldn't be
worth all that much since the first few turns
are usually relatively free of combat anyway.
IMHO, fighters are already cheap enough (maybe
too cheap maybe not) but we don't need to find
ways to make them cheaper. 

I think though this is an attempt to graft a
concept from wet navies onto space navies who
no longer have the restriction that required
the concept. It's easier to launch and recover
fighters in a vaccuum and doesn't require the
large, expensive catapult bottleneck our 
current navies do. In other words, It's so
easy to create a shotgun launch capability 
in a space carrier, that most everyone does
it.


--- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
> 
> If I were your opponent and you were using this I
> would howl.
> 
> Cargo bays base cost is massX0.  You are getting a
> major
> point savings here.  Fighter bays base cost is
> massX3.  You
> are making a system which is often debated as being
> overly
> affected even cheaper.
> 
> Here, try it this way.
> 
> Fighters physically take up 6 Mass.
> 
> Fighter support, for people, equipment and spares
> take up
> 3 mass.
> 
> In actuality the fighter bay itself costs  little,
> it is
> after all mostly empty space.  OTH the equipment,
> support, and
> spares area costs MassX6.
> 
> Roger

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/