Re: Fighters and Hangers

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 
> >
> > For settings with very large ships and relatively small fighters,
> > treat each fighter group as a single battery with a class equal to 
> > the number of fighters remaining.  Like a regular battery, the 
> > fighter group rolls that many dice in the first range band only, 
> > reducing the number of dice rolled by one for each further range 
> > band.  Use either 2 MU or 1 MU range bands.
> 
> IOW, if you use 2mu range bands the fighter group as a whole gets 
> *longer*-ranged weapons than before at the same time as the
> individual fighters grow *smaller* relative to the ships?
> 

But at the ranges of the standard rules, only at 0-2 MU does the group
roll the same number of dice.  We use the two options for different
scenarios: if the scenario involves "smaller" ships, then we use 2 MU;
if the scenario uses "larger" ships then we use 1 MU.

For example:
2 MU scale:
B5: no ships larger than White Star, EA Hyperion, or Centuari Vorchan
SW: no ship larger than Nebulon-B, Imperial "Strike" Class cruiser, or
Imp. "Dreadnought" class heavy cruiser
ST:TOS
ST:TME 
ST:TNG/DS9: no ship larger than Type 1-c Starships (e.g. Excelsior)

1 MU scale:
B5: includes ships like EA Nova or Omega, Narn G'Quan, Centauri Primus,
Minbari Sharlin, etc.
SW: includes star destroyers or Mon Cal cruisers
BSG: includes battlestars
ST:TNG/DS9 includes Type I-d, I-e or I-f Starships (e.g. Ambassador,
Galaxy and Nebula, and Sovereign classes, respectively)

In any case, if you don't like the 2 MU option, then ignore it and
consider only the 1 MU option.

> Also, why would this be specific to settings with very large ships
> and relatively small fighters, as opposed to settings with relatively
> small ships? It has exactly the same level of abstraction as the 
> current FT fighter rules, so is just as suitable for the low-level 
> GZGverse mass scale.
> 

We assumed that the GZG setting was a stable basis, then any scaling f
fighter facilities necessitated a reduction in fighter power.

>  >Point Defense Batteries
> [...]
>  >Dual Purpose Batteries
> [...]
>  >Point Defense Fire and Area Defense Fire
> 
> These rules are conceptually similar to the fighter rules playtested
> at the ECC (though the exact details differ quite a lot) - but these
> concepts have nothing at all to do with the relative mass ratios 
> between fighters and larger ships. They work just as well in the 
> GZGverse as in the B5 or SW backgrounds.
> 

May be so, but since the implied posting of those test rules after ECC
never occurred, I included what we use for completeness.  Otherwise I
would have said something like "we use something similar the beta rules
posted last week".

> The bay design methods are a problem area. We worked on similar
> systems for StarFire many years back, but had to drop them because of

> their inherent abusability:
> 
> If you recalled the various bay masses and costs correctly, 

I did:
points at same rate as FB1
MASS 3 +2 +1 +1... and MASS 2 +1 +0.5 +0.5...

> a "classic" Mass-12 soapbubble carrier can now carry 6 fighter groups
> instead of 1.  Have you changed the cost of the fighters themselves 
> in any way, 

We use the costs from FB1 per fighter group, and allow common-sense
multi-specialties, such as Heavy, Fast, Intercepter (like F-14, F-15,
A-wing, etc.).

The only change we have s a Light Fighter that is easier to kill (+1)
but costs less.  We use these for TIEs and some Centauri fighters.  A
Light, Fast, Intrceptor costs the same as a standard multi-role
fighter.

> or do you find the increased DP and PDS capabilities to  balance 
> extreme numbers of fighters by themselves?
> 

Our games are friendly, and do not see the competitive extremes I have
seen discussed on this list.  The biggest were based on WW2/modern
fleet carriers, Colonial battlestars and Cylon basestars, BFG based
carriers, and a Centuari Balavarian carrying 16 groups total in 2
hangers with 4 class-1 flight bays.  This last one in games with TMF
300 Primus and 400+ Octurian.

The vast majority (90%) of our games that involve fighters are either
B5, SW or home grown.  The way we have ST converted (TOS & TME only),
fighters get shredded, although we have never tried dedicated fighter
carriers like the Archangel from "Starfleet Prototype".

Most of our use of this system as been where most capital ships have
12-36 fighters (2-6 groups) and most escorts have 6-12 (1-2 groups) but
there aren't a lot of dedicated CVs (the ISD is just a capital on
steroids).  So a battle squadron of 4 capital ships might easily have
16 groups of fighters among them, with another 8 from the escort group.
 The long range DP fire tends to keep strike fighters dispersed (we use
1 MU square counters rather than stands of mini's, so stacks are both
allowed and possible) until the turn that they move in for an actual
strike and most capital ships maintain a CAP of 1 or 2 groups of
intercptors (if available) or multirole (if not) for screening.

Fleet design and operational doctrine have a large impact.  For
example; consistently equipping a fleet throughout with a low level of
ADFC on every ship and then operating in formation significantly raises
the bar for what is needed to swamp defenses.  OTOH, the only area
effect weapons that we use are EFSB-inspired E-Mines.

> > This system gives several design choices.  For example, do you have
> > a single bay for economy of scale, or several separate ones in case
> > of damage?	Do you have just flight bays or also hanger bays for
> > second (or more) launches?	Do you have mulipurpose flight bays or
> > seperate launch and recovery bays so that you can conduct both 
> > operations at the same time?
> 

O.O.'s example: 
3 x flight bay-3 (18 MASS)
vs
1 x launch bay-6 +
1 x hanger bay-6 +
1 x landing bay-6 +
taxiways to transfer 6 fighters LdB->HB +
taxiways to transfer 6 fighters HB->LaB 
total 19.5 MASS

> 
> With identical "extra" equipment (hull integrity, thrust rating,
> defensive armament etc.) the flight bay carrier is cheaper overall 
> (even if you use the 3xMass bay cost,

you mean "even if you use the 9x class cost" or "especially if you use
the 3x MASS cost", right?

> since its slightly smaller bay Mass means that the basic hull 
> structure, engines etc. will be a little cheaper than for the
> specialized-bay carrier), runs a smaller risk of getting knocked out 
> completely due to failed threshold checks (the specialized-bay
> carrier's fighter ops are shut down if any *one* of its three bays 
> is damaged; on the flight bay carrier you have to take out all three 
> bays to shut its fighters ops completely),

1) Taking out the Hanger requires a 2nd row threshold check.
2) depends on where in the launch cycle the ship is, e.g. taking out
the launch bay while the fighters are already out gives at least 2
turns before they are needed again, during which repairs can be
attempted (1 turn to land, 2nd turn transfer to hanger & rearm while
landing 2nd wave, 3rd turn see if launch bay is repaired. 

> and it carries 50% more fighters (which of course have to be bought 
> separately).

Your 3x class-3 flight bay design could exchange 1 flight bay for 2x
class-2 hangers (total 10 groups) or 1x class-8 hanger (total 14
groups) feeding the launch bays.

Looking back I see that I wasn't clear that fighters can be stored in
the Launch tubes/bay and landing/recovery bay, so the
Launch-Hanger-Landing design has a transport capacity of 18 groups vs 9
for the 3x3 flight design. 

I also left out that we allow fighters to be readied (loaded/fueled) in
landing and launch facilities but count at double size.  I.e. your
class 6 launch bay could reload 3 fighters at once, as could the
landing bay. 

However they cannot be "serviced", so that repairs for "patched up"
fighters on rearming/turnaround must be done in the hanger, same for
service during campaigns.

Conceptually, you could also have a Launch-Recovery Bay (with storage
but no arming/fueling capability) feed by a hanger bay and having
MASS/PV like the Launch/Hanger/Landing bays.  This is what I would do
for B5 Omegas and Novas: the externally-visible "tunnel" is the
Launch-Recovery Bay and an elevator/taxiway takes the craft to the
hanger.  Higher tech PSB could be grav accelerator/curtain barriers
like the Excalibur in Crusade.

Based on WW2 practice, we also allow (for campaigns only) storage in
hangers at 2:1, but require full space for operational prep.  I.e. in a
campaign your class 6 hanger could have 8 groups in storage (counts as
4) and 2 groups readied.  When you want to begin operations, you need
to clear some space by transferring the ready groups to the launch bay,
then ready two more.  When they are transfered, there are 3 open spots,
allowing 3 to be readied, etc. 

With a certain number of interceptor remaining on CAP (CSP?), you have
enough space to turn around an entire strike in a few turns.

> 
> Its drawbacks are that it is somewhat more likely to take damage from
> fighters exploding inside its bays if it is hit while reloading the 
> fighters (though it has fewer fighters in each individual bay than
> the specialized-bay carrier can have in its single hangar), and that 
> it can't recover another carrier's entire brood in the same turn as
it
> launches its own... but those drawbacks are very rarely sufficient to

> compensate for its advantages. The choice between these two designs 
> becomes pretty easy.

I guess because I wasn't clear in my original post, but your L-H-L
design	actually allows playing more complex flight ops, where a group
is launched and waits to form up with successive launches for a single
strike.

Additionally, by using hangers, you can get the turnaround limits of
real carriers as a design constraint as well as well as doing away with
the need for arbitrary limits on operations like those in the current
system.  Instead the ship designer sets those limits with the
capacities chosen for various facilities.

> 
> With other choices for the bay masses and costs - eg. if you reduce
> the mass of the launch/recovery bays enough, or increase the number
of
> free taxiways - you can easily make the choice trivial in the other
> direction instead... but it is very difficult to create a "multi-way"

> system where these choices *aren't* trivial :-(
> 

These were the numbers that we have used without anyone trying to
"break" it.  If some serious testing were done, I would not be
surprised to find that MASS values of:
 3 +2 +2... and 2 +1 +1...
or
 4 +3 +2 +2 and 3 +2 +1 +1
 or something similar were better.  <shrug>
Probably also CPV cost based on class rather than MASS would be best.

J