Re: [FT] Fighters, - this time its not the balance argument!

For those who havn't found this, I've listed the 'actual cost' to bring
fighters on the board:

http://home.woh.rr.com/cfaunce/page12.html

I agree with moving some/all of the hanger cost onto the fighters
themselves. This also helps balance out hangers that carry things like
troop
transports which have no actual combat influence (and should then have
no
cost) but are carried for scenario objectives (i.e. needing to get X
transports ground-side)

Chan Faunce

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Taylor" <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: [FT] Fighters, - this time its not the balance argument!

> Well, not the argument that's being argued at the moment...
>
> I just have some 'niggles' about hanger costs and relative fighter
> costs...
>
> Ok, Take a standard fighter group, costs 18 points.
> To carry it requires a hanger, 9 MASS and 27 points.
>
> The hanger has a points cost 50% greater than the fighter group it
holds
> (not counting the MASS it takes up)
>
> - but what use is the hanger without the fighters?
>
> I think I'd like to see the cost distribution between the hanger & the
> fighter groups re-distributed, say, reduce hanger cost to 9 points (1
> per MASS), and add +18 points to the cost of a fighter group, - so if
I
> choose to take a ship (say a BDN), and leave its hanger empty, I'm not
> penalising myself that much?
>
> Likewise, perhaps the cost of a small craft hanger bays could be
reduced
> in a similar manner - or does this all open yet another huge can of
> worms?
>
> On a related subject - I'm not sure about the relative costs of the
> different fighter types (multirole, interceptor, fast, attack,
> etc.) either...
>
> What I'd like to see, were it at all possible, is a 'fighter design
> system' (possibly similar to Jared Noble's system, with a few
> extensions), allowing the design of fighters with a range of speeds,
> resilliancies and weapons capabilities, possibly including rules for
> 'small' fighter missiles. I'd also like some design rules for 'small
> craft' bridging the gap between fighters (<= 1 MASS) and scoutships
> (MASS 6+) and allowing the design of shuttlecraft etc. I've had some
> ideas on this subject, but I have difficulties getting them to work.
>
> Charles
>
> --