Re: Fighters and Hangers

Jared Hilal wrote:

>RE: SW SD ground forces
>OO wrote:
> > ...my point is that those 90,000 CS worth of ground forces make such
> > a small contribution to the *space combat power* of the ISD that
they
>
> > can be ignored for Full Thrust purposes.
>
>If you include them in the design, then yes, the *offensive* power of
>the ship is unaffected, but the survivability of the ship is quadrupled
>(if you assume a constant ratio of hull mass rather than "pick any
>number with minimum" of FB2).	So the *defensive* capability is
>significantly increased.

If all the ship's surface systems are shot away, it turns into a
drifting 
hulk rather than a cloud of debris - but it is nevertheless "destroyed"
in 
FT terms, since it can no longer manoeuvre or fire weapons and has no
hopes 
of repairing any of the damage within the time frame of the battle.

>RE: relationship between fighters and ships
>I wrote:
> >>Example being in SW, with TIEs et al. at any conversion rate so that
> >>an ISD gets at least 1 FT fighter group and that for a Corellian
> >>Corvette/Gunship/Blockade Runner to be a minimum usable FTL ship of
> >>MASS 5-6, the ISD is going to be on the order of TMF 1000.
>
>OO responded:
> >In Star Wars the smallest FTL-capable ships are single-person
fighters
> >(eg. X-wings), not Corellian Corvettes. (OK, 2-person fighters if you
> >count the astromech droids :-/ )
>
>They may be the smallest FTL *craft*, but I would not count them as
*ships*.

And why not? Merely because they're called "fighters" in the SW canon,
or 
because you need a distinction between them and the Corellian ships to
have 
a reason to claim that mass scale is too low to allow SSDs to be
playable, 
or for some other reason?

Looking at another of your example SF backgrounds B5 StarFuries and
other 
single-person fighters are explicitly called "ships" in that background.
If 
the B5 StarFuries qualify as "ships", why don't SW X-wings and similar
do so?

I'm sorry, Jared, but I get the impression that you have already decided

that SDDs and similar huge craft are unplayable and that you are now 
actively searching for arguments to keep them that way. What I don't 
understand is *why* you do this.

>We usually do not have superships except as a theoretical exercise.
>Using Dean Gundberg's SSD as a reference, sectional ships seem much
>weaker than the same systms on a single ship because
>
>1) a much lower amount of damage will cause threshold checks
>2) area effect weapons can be interpreted to affect more than one
section
>3) a single section can be critical to the ship, and concentrating on
>that can eliminate the ship while bypassing the rest of the ship's
strength.

You have just listed three of the six main reasons why large ships cost
so 
much in the CPV system, and thus also why breaking them up into sections

would reduce their total CPVs.

(The remaining main reasons are
4) the individual sections run a much bigger risk of running out of
FCSs,
5) the sectioned ship can't fire all its weapons the first thing that 
happens in the Ships Fire phase since each section counts as a separate 
ship, and
6) the sections can't combine their DCPs to repair damage, while a
single 
huge ship could.)

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry