• Registered: 2005-06-12
  • Posts: 27

Topic: New Way to Bay Fighters?

With the proliferation of discussions on fighters earlier, I thought I would give a try to new fighter types and methods.  One conclusion I came to, especially when using the (exceedingly clever!) SX Fighter sheet, was that traditional fighter bays didn't cut it when you started creating really unusual fighter types.  In combination with a rule that lets fighters of the same type 'bunch' into larger flights during the fighter phase, this system has been working in neat ways:

Design Options:

    “Fighter Racks”  Cost: 40 SU
ALLOWS: Up to 35 CR of fighters to be carried and up to six fighters to be launched / turn.  If a ship takes Racks, it must designate one and only one type of fighter which can be carried and launched by the racks.

    “Fighter Bay”:  55 SU
ALLOWS: Up to 50 CR of fighters to be carried, and three fighters to be launched / turn.

    “Tactical Fighter Bay”: 70 SU
ALLOWS: Up to 65 CR of fighters to be carried, and three fighters to be launched / turn

    “Bomber Bay”:  80 SU
ALLOWS: Up to 75 CR of fighters to be carried, and three fighters to be launched / turn.

    “Limited Flight Deck”: 100 SU
        ALLOWS: Up to 80 CR of fighters to be carried / up to three launched.

    “Flight Deck”:  130 SU
        ALLOWS: Up to 110 CR of fighters to be carried / up to three launched.

    “Launch Catapult” 15 SU
        ALLOWS: An additional three fighters to launched/turn.
   
    “Flat Top”:  5% total Sus
        ALLOWS: Up to sixteen fighters to be launched/turn.

In this system, its a little harder to built uber-carriers, and launch facilities are a little more limited.  Thus, a ship with just a bay can hold anywhere from six to eight fighters, but it might not have all the speed it desires at deploying them. 

So, using these, I could construct a simple patrol cruiser with two "fighter racks" for 80 SU, and have it carry a small flight of three rapidly deployable fighters.  I could also go all out and build a ship with Flat Top and three Flight Decks, taking up 390 and more SU, but allowing the carrying of up to 330 points worth of fighters, and simultaneous deployment on 25 of them.

So...too complicated, or a good way of dealing?

-Adso

  • Registered: 2005-12-19
  • Posts: 11

Re: New Way to Bay Fighters?

Those don't seem like bad ideas.

On a much simpler scale I normally play that for each Fighter Bay you have you must also have a Launch Bay, regardless of whether you pre-deploy the fighters before the battle or if you launch them as the battle commences.

  • Registered: 2005-04-04
  • Posts: 40

Re: New Way to Bay Fighters?

But what about fighters carried on the outside of the hull?  Would you necessarily need any launch bays whatsoever with those?  You could model that by saying exterior fighter berths are equivalent to having an integral launch bay, but that they are destroyed at a far greater rate than regular interior bays -- say, three or five per Equipment hit rather than the standard one.  Food for thought...

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: New Way to Bay Fighters?

A big part of what I envision being in the SU for a fighter bay is the parts, ammo, flight crew, launch and recovery equipment...

You don't actually lose all that stuff if you "move" the fighter do you?

  • Registered: 2005-06-12
  • Posts: 27

Re: New Way to Bay Fighters?

Indeed, but by making the 'size' of the bay dependent on the CR of the fighters carried, I think I take the equipment factor into consideration.

For example, if your ship has one set of Fighter Racks, it could variously hold:

5-6 light, TIE-style crappy fighters (costing between 4-6 CR each).  This makes sense because the vessels themselves are small, and are not equipped with any particularly maintenance intensive special systems or weaponry, keeping maintenance and stowage space down.

2-3 high-quality fighters (costing 8-12 CR each).  This makes sense because although the fighters themselves may not be much 'bigger' than the crappy ones above, their higher CR, and thus, the fewer carrier, reflects more sophisticated weapons, drives, crew, maintenance, etc.

1 huge 'heavy bomber'  or 'assault shuttle' (costing 15-25 CR), makes sense because such a craft obviously requires a lot of supplies, ammunition storage, and even crew bunking capacity than either of the two examples.

But any of these would fit into the 'fighter rack' equipment -- which could represent, in your ship design, the varying launch facilities required for whichever one(s) you choose.

-Adso

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: New Way to Bay Fighters?

makes fighters too sticky, in my opinion.

It was great when we got Launch Bays even more important with the VBAM/Starmada campaign system.

However, if you put too much detail in the system, not only does it bog things down, but it is restrictive in it's implementation.

One must always balance one's own personal desire to reflect "reality" with everyone else's desire to reflect their own reality.

I you want to implement that, go for it, just don't expect my fighters to conform to your constraints.  I personally have problems with fighters outside the plain vanilla version.

but that's just me and I'm not going to squawk too much if you bring some 200 point fighter flights to the table, I'm just going to concentrate fire on them.

I like the idea of the size of the bay being important, but I'd force people to spend more SUs on fighters than they currently do, rather than add more levels of complicated detail.

  • Registered: 2005-12-19
  • Posts: 11

Re: New Way to Bay Fighters?

javelin98 wrote:

But what about fighters carried on the outside of the hull?  Would you necessarily need any launch bays whatsoever with those?  You could model that by saying exterior fighter berths are equivalent to having an integral launch bay, but that they are destroyed at a far greater rate than regular interior bays -- say, three or five per Equipment hit rather than the standard one.  Food for thought...

In my little "universe" Fighter Bays compose the pressurized maintenance, armament and crew areas of a single fighter squadron.  The Launch Bay is the unpressurized electro-magnetic catapult, anti-grav, whatever launch mechanisms that connect to the Fighter Bay.
I don't see any reason why externally mounted fighters would need Launch Bays but in our "universe" fighters are to fragile to be strapped down to the hull of a vessel.
I agree that any vessel with externally mounted fighters should see those Fighter Bays having a greater chance of being destroyed then Fighter Bays located within the hull.