Re: Squadron Question

I get where you are coming from John, but I have to disagree that the 
lower launch rate isn't a sufficient penalty.

Let's say we've got a couple of soap bubbles with 90 Mass dedicated to 
fighters.
The first one is  using standard figher bays.  So he can carry and 
launch 10 fighters in his first turn.
The second carrier has 4 launch bays, leaving him with 13 groups carried

in hangars.  However, if those fighters require a turn of prep between 
launches in his first turn he can launch 4 groups, by turn three he can 
have 8, by turn five he can have 12 groups, and not until turn 7 can he 
have the last group launch.

So in the first two turns the seperate launch bay carrier is outnumbered

in fighters by 5:1, turn three and four by 5:4, and by turn 5 will out 
number the traditional carrier.  More than likely many of those fighters

would be lost to attrition by turn 5.  Also remember that the carrier 
cannot manuever on those turns when it is launching fighters.	
Meanwhile the traditional carrier could have rearmed/regrouped and 
relaunched his fighter squadrons.

As you said Full thrust generally moves fast. You give up your own 
reaction time and speed of attack to carry more fighters.  This would 
seem to me to be mainly an advantage in longer games, if you can keep 
your carrier and most of your fighters intact...

... or if your opponent was lacking in fighters of his own, but then 
that is still an issue regardless of what type of carriers your opt
for..

but as The TUFF (if David Hasselhoff can be the Hoff I think Tuffley can

be the TUFF) said it will have to be proved by playing... personally I 
think I will try it out, I like the extra layer of complication.. ;)

Kevin

On 22/02/2013 1:02 a.m., John Atkinson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:00 AM,  <gzg-d-request@firedrake.org>
wrote:
>
>> But I also beleive like the player in question, the launch/recovery
function has take up at least part of the Mass of the bay.
>> The question is how much?
>>
>> I am looking at the group for Wisdom, don't want to shut him down as
this is a player who rarely has a "idea",
>> but I want to make sure if we allow this we don't hose other carrier
types.
> Whereas I DO want to shut him down.  For game balance reasons.
>
> So a six-bay carrier normally takes 54 mass, right?  However, if you
> let him treat fighters are missiles then you could save 6 tons for
> every two you reduce the launch rate by.  So those same 54 mass with a
> launch rate of two squadrons per turn can now support 8 squadrons.
> Allowing him to increase fighters on the board by 33% without any
> penalty is Not Cool.
>
> But, cries he, there's a lower launch rate.  Well, bullshit.	All that
> means is he spends a couple turns forming up his fighter groups early
> in the game.	Very rarely have I ever seen fighters actually survive
> their combat, exhaust their endurance, land, rearm, and relaunch in
> the same battle.  As a general rule Full Thrust moves too fast for
> this to be a concern. and fighter casualties are too heavy.
>
> In order to compete (33% extra fighters would be significant,
> especially in fighter-heavy fleets) everyone would have to adopt the
> same scheme.	The game already rewards soap bubble carriers enough,
> let's not make it any cheaper in terms of mass and thus points to
> field them.
>
> John