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

In one of my own ship-to-ship systems (homebrew spaceship game),
to build fighers and other small spacecraft, I just used the ship
construction rules,
and scaled up the fighters.  (ie: a heavy fighter would use escort or
frigate stats)
And then I added stats for the various fighter components:  Cockpits,
sensors, ect.
When the fighter is done, just scale the cost/size back down again...

Seemed to work pretty well.

Donald Hosford

Charles Taylor wrote:

> 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
>