Re: FT: Squadron Question

Just like to point out that another disadvantage apart from launch and 
recover times is that a bad threshold roll or recovery roll for the 
launch bay can severly affect future launch/recover rates.

If you really want to hinder seperate launch bays, make them use the 
fighter recovery roll to prep a fighter squadron.

I think we are quickly seeing why all the GZG universe powers use 
combined launch bays/hangars. :p

Kevin

On 22/02/2013 12:13 a.m., Ground Zero Games wrote:
>> Personally I like the idea of seperate launch/recover system to the
hangar.
>>
>> I'd house rule a fighter launch bay to 3 mass with 6 mass per hangar
>> myself, however, I'd also require that fighters take a turn of prep
to
>> move from the hangar to the launch bay or 1 turn from the recovery
bay
>> to the hangar.
>>
>> Compare 6 normal fighter bays take 54 mass, 6 hangars plus 2 launch
bay
>> takes 42 mass.  So for 54 mass you can launch all 6 fighter groups in
>> one turn.  For a savings of 12 mass you can carry the same number of
>> fighters but can only launch or recover 2 groups every other round.
>
> Hi all, I've been watching this discussion point with interest - and
> please don't take this as an "official" pronouncement on the subject,
> because everyone if free to use whatever house rules they are most
> happy with - BUT this suggestion is definitely the one I like best so
> far.
> You can have a "ready squadron" in the launch tubes/bays/whatever,
> ready to scramble at short notice - but once they have launched, it
> takes a full turn to move another squadron into the vacated launch
> area, and that squadron can launch the turn after that. Similarly
> with recovery, once the launch area is full it takes a complete turn
> to clear the landed fighters back to their storage hangar before the
> bay can be re-used to recover another group.
> Given that many FT games don't actually stretch over a huge number of
> turns, I think this may well give sufficient penalty to ships with
> fewer launch bays than hangars to balance out any "cheese factor" -
> though of course this will only be proved or disproved by playing, so
> if anyone tries it out please let us all know the results here!
>
> Jon (GZG)
>
>>
>> On 21/02/2013 5:30 p.m., Doc wrote:
>>>   textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
>>>
>>>   I have read most of the comments on this topic via the Digest.
>>>
>>>   And while I agree there needs to be more to his idea, then what he
>>> suggested.	At the sametime, he is going to take the hit of not
>>> being able to launch and recover all his fighters at one time.
>>>
>>>   So how would you all, build a Carrier with the ability to launch
>>> or recover 1 squadron at a time, but have 2 or more squadron
>>> onboard.  and at what cost.
>>>
>>>   I do agree with John that part of the Bay "The mass of the fighter
>>> bay is not merely the launch doors, but the fuel, ordnance, support
>>> crew, etc. necessary to maintain, arm, launchand recover the
>>> fighters.  If he needs a "common sense" reason other than "stop
>>> trying to be a cheezy bastard"."
>>>
>>>   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.
>>>
>>>   Thanks again
>>>
>>>
>
>