Pig Skin Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Drones and fighters are what we are talking about here so they are irrelevant to your point. Fuel is obviously handled special due to it's logistical nature and the way the thrust and action point equations work, so fuel is also irrelevant to this discussion. All of the people movers make logical sense and fit in with the traditional science fiction nature that this game is set in. Normally you don't stack people (alien lifeforms, whatever) in freighter holds; not people you like in any event. There has to be a reasonable level of logic to the game universe or what's the point? It doesn't take much effort to put fuel in a barrel and haul it in a cargo bay either. Or set up cots in a cargo bay for troops or colonists. Both happened in times of war in the past, if people want to argue realism. Colonists may suffer attrition aboard such conditions, but it could be argud that cargo bays could be used to haul anything... But if we do argue realism then why do Fighter Bays get to launch Bombers too? You should have to buy a diferent type of Bay for each type of fighter / bomber / gunboat if you want to go the realism direction. Same for drones. You should have to bring your carrier force back and scrap it all up like everyone else does to be able to use the biger bombers and gunboats. I'm not against carting unlaunchable fighters/drones, but I am against giving them 2-for-1 specials. As for the supposed test battles that some claim, feel free to post them and we can all see what is claimed. According to the posts on fighters and drones by RTG, they are more efficient than other weapons, including their bays. If there is proof otherwise then that may change the debate, for me at least. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 I think Ur-Lord Tedric has got things just about spot on. Going with drones/fighters does give an early advantage because you do not have to constantly update your warfleets. That rusting old carrier built in round 4, is now equipped with Mk VIII drones, and can take take on just about anything in the galaxy. Any other type of weapon would be next to useless by now. The drawback of course is once you have run out of drones you are pretty vulnerable. Without hard numbers to the contrary, it could be just as easily argued that the fighter race is disadvantaged because his ships are twice as expensive. He has to pay once for the tonnage of the fighter bays, and again for the same tonnage of fighters. For the same investment in raw resources and industry, the non-fighter fleet will carry more net tonnage of weapons. I'm assuming here that the fighter bays themselves cannot damage the opponent in battle. Also, if the fighter race only has the latest and greatest fighters on board, he probably has a bunch of old fighters sitting unused on his homeworld that he doesn't have the fighter bays to deploy them with. Whereas the gunship race can bring his old gunships along as cannon fodder if nothing else. I can see plenty of disadvantages to fighters. There is no need for a weird rule that fighters won't fit in freighter holds. Personally I'm guessing that the only reason they can't be now is because that part of the game wasn't finished when play started. Part of the under weigh cargo transfer section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 It doesn't take much effort to put fuel in a barrel and haul it in a cargo bay either. Or set up cots in a cargo bay for troops or colonists. No, in the real world, you cannot put fuel in barrels and replenish your ships at sea. Nor do ships carry around their fuel in barrels. Fuel is an expendable that needs to be handled separately. Just like you need fighter bays to launch fighters. Fuel is totally different in this game as it represents the O&M logistics. But I will point out that you can carry improved and advanced fuel in cargo holds. You just can't use that fuel to move your ships. It's also impractical to move people in cargo holds. If you add the environmental systems, sewage systems, food handling systems, entertainment systems, etc., you've basically built the colonists / troops berthing. Since we don't even start the game with razor wire, I doubt we are freeze drying the colonists and reconstituting them at their destination. "Realism" isn't of primary importance in a non-historical game. But there needs to be a basically logical framework. My argument is that not being able to ship fighters in freighter holds is fundamentally illogical. Too much of that and a game becomes "silly". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Without hard numbers to the contrary, it could be just as easily argued that the fighter race is disadvantaged because his ships are twice as expensive. He has to pay once for the tonnage of the fighter bays, and again for the same tonnage of fighters. For the same investment in raw resources and industry, the non-fighter fleet will carry more net tonnage of weapons. I'm assuming here that the fighter bays themselves cannot damage the opponent in battle. Also, if the fighter race only has the latest and greatest fighters on board, he probably has a bunch of old fighters sitting unused on his homeworld that he doesn't have the fighter bays to deploy them with. Whereas the gunship race can bring his old gunships along as cannon fodder if nothing else. I can see plenty of disadvantages to fighters. There is no need for a weird rule that fighters won't fit in freighter holds. Personally I'm guessing that the only reason they can't be now is because that part of the game wasn't finished when play started. Part of the under weigh cargo transfer section. I'd suggest reading the Naval Combat Primer: "Both fighters and drones tend to dish out more damage per ton (including their launch bays) than regular, comparable weapon systems. They can be launched from ships that stay back at DL # 12 with the mother ships being screened by other vessels up front." Unless you have proof to the contrarly then I'll go with what the rules say, not what you speckulate. If you do have proof otherwise then please let us all know and many may change their position on this. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 No, in the real world, you cannot put fuel in barrels and replenish your ships at sea. Nor do ships carry around their fuel in barrels. Fuel is an expendable that needs to be handled separately. Just like you need fighter bays to launch fighters. Fuel is totally different in this game as it represents the O&M logistics. But I will point out that you can carry improved and advanced fuel in cargo holds. You just can't use that fuel to move your ships. It's also impractical to move people in cargo holds. If you add the environmental systems, sewage systems, food handling systems, entertainment systems, etc., you've basically built the colonists / troops berthing. Since we don't even start the game with razor wire, I doubt we are freeze drying the colonists and reconstituting them at their destination. "Realism" isn't of primary importance in a non-historical game. But there needs to be a basically logical framework. My argument is that not being able to ship fighters in freighter holds is fundamentally illogical. Too much of that and a game becomes "silly". In the world that I live in, both people and fuel have been hauled in cargo holds, both make-shifft and otherwise. It may not be efficient, but it can be done in an emergency. Nobody ever mentioned anything about refueling at sea... that is an irelevent point. The title of razor wire is just a title for ground combat upgrades, nothing more. It has nothing to do with the topic, and is irelevent. Again, depending on ones view, why are Bombers and Gunboats allowed to be launched from Fighter Bays then? One could argue that there should be Bomber Bays and Gunboat bays and just because it wasn't added at first doesnt mean that it couldnt now. Same for larger Drone racks... how can a Colossus Drone fit throgh the same launcher as a light drone? -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palladium Regency Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Please point out in the rules documentation or supplements where it states that the inability to carry drones/fighters in cargo holds is to balance these weapons systems. You know what, you can't. That is speculating on your part. Until Pete says differently, I believe it is an error and not a balance issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 In the world that I live in, both people and fuel have been hauled in cargo holds, both make-shifft and otherwise. It may not be efficient, but it can be done in an emergency. Nobody ever mentioned anything about refueling at sea... that is an irelevent point. The title of razor wire is just a title for ground combat upgrades, nothing more. It has nothing to do with the topic, and is irelevent. Again, depending on ones view, why are Bombers and Gunboats allowed to be launched from Fighter Bays then? One could argue that there should be Bomber Bays and Gunboat bays and just because it wasn't added at first doesnt mean that it couldnt now. Same for larger Drone racks... how can a Colossus Drone fit throgh the same launcher as a light drone? -Pig Skin We are not talking about emergency situations. I was trying to explain that Fuel is handled differently than the other materials in this game. I'm going to give up on trying to explain that one as it seems self evident to me. Perhaps someone else can explain it better. Razor Wire = I am assuming that our races do not have god like technologies that would allow them to, for example, convert their colonists to little solid bricks, stack them in a cargo hold, and most importantly convert them back to living beings at the destination. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer about that. IMO Bombers and Gunboats are just colorful names for more advanced / larger fighters so they can use the same launch and recovery facilities. > I'd suggest reading the Naval Combat Primer: Nothing you wrote about the naval combat primer refuted my statement that carriers are nearly twice as expensive as comparable size gunships. Nor does it refute my statement that if a carrier race keeps modern fighters on his carriers, then he probably has old fighters sitting around somewhere whereas the gunship race can have his old warships in the battle. But since you brought that up, you forgot to mention the rest of that section from the naval combat primer which discusses the drawbacks to carriers, namely that their fighters can be destroyed in detail, whereas a gunship can just go to the nearest shipyard and be repaired/rebuilt at 100% efficiency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 If Cargo Bays can't carry people then where do the Fighter pilots go? Again, I personally am not against (others may be but that's their choice) carting fighters or drones in an unlaunchable state, its this wanting a 2-for-1 special-treatment rules change that is troubling. Yes, Bays+Fighters are more expensive, but the primer is very clear with: "Both fighters and drones tend to dish out more damage per ton (including their launch bays) than regular, comparable weapon systems. They can be launched from ships that stay back at DL # 12 with the mother ships being screened by other vessels up front." If you have evidence to the contrary that fighters or drones do not dish out more damage per ton (including their launch bays) then regular, combaparble weapon systems, and thus a need for 2-for-1 specials then please present it. Otherwise if you dont like the fact that fighters or drones can be destroyed or need to be hauled around, dont research them. CIDS and missiles are readily available and in many different types. If youre going to lobby to change the rules to make 2-for-1 specials then others should be allowed to reap the rewards too by reallocating tech points to get them too. Then we can all see who can build the bigest fighter or drone strikes. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 > If Cargo Bays can't carry people then where do the Fighter pilots go? Sleep with the rest of the crew? It doesn't seem important. > a 2-for-1 special-treatment rules change that is troubling. I don't see a need for any special 2:1 complication and never argued for such. IMO, it wouldn't make any practical difference, but I don't think that it's necessary either. > Both fighters and drones tend to dish out more damage per ton (including their launch bays) than regular, comparable weapon systems. I never said either way about fighter efficiency. But if I wanted to play Clinton, I would start picking on words like "tend" and "comparable". Nobody wants that. > Otherwise if you dont like the fact that fighters or drones can be destroyed or need to be hauled around, dont research them. I'm not. But I still think it's wrong that fighters can't be crated and shipped in cargo bays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan Elder 'Keen Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 "If youre going to lobby to change the rules to make 2-for-1 specials then others should be allowed to reap the rewards too by reallocating tech points to get them too. Then we can all see who can build the bigest fighter or drone strikes." I personally have approached this issue as a discussion of rules/mechanics, not on a What-I-Need-For-My-Empire basis. In fact, I do not have a single fighter or drone in service. Interestingly enough, the fact that fighter and drones suffer attrition independent of their hosting vessels came to light well after the game started. A great many issues were only guessed at prior to the naval combat primer, and there still remains a high degree of mystery. Since some might now be second-guessing their choice to go down the fighter tech road due to the resupply needs, I think it only fair that crating be reviewed by the GMs for game balance and included if appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octagon999 Posted July 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 LOL Remember when this thread was about Fleet/Ship repair? Start your own topic!!! LMAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 LOL Remember when this thread was about Fleet/Ship repair? Start your own topic!!! LMAO True. But there is a tenuous connection in that fighters are destroyed instead of being damaged (per available evidence) whereas ships can be damaged and later repaired. So there is a repair discussion angle to fighter replenishment and costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 I personally have approached this issue as a discussion of rules/mechanics, not on a What-I-Need-For-My-Empire basis. In fact, I do not have a single fighter or drone in service. Does that include researched? I have many items under research that I have not yet put into service. If your researching them your lobby for 2:1 specials is for Personal Empire Enhancement. Even if I had fighters, and who knows, I may, I'd be against a 2:1 special. But if I did have them, I'd never cart them around unlaunchable, even with a 2-for-one special. That's one crazy strategy to lobby for, dude. As for not knowing something, I do agree that the rules are murky. But when I was upset about the shipyard not requiring power flaw that many admitted to taking advantage of, I was told something like "I should have asked" by some people in the 2-for-1 fighter club. I present the same answer back reguarding fighters or drones getting shot down or any other fighter question or complaint: If you didn't understand the drawbacks to fighters or drones, you should have asked. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 If, in the wisdom of the game designers, fighter/drone cargo fits into the same category, then I will accept their judgement with no qualms. I just don't want these sorts of changes being taken lightly. In fact, ANY change in the rules/mechanics needs to be made with the greatest of caution with a view to its effect on all players. Personally, I would love for fighter/drones to be able to be shipped by cargo bay in some form or another, such as being crated (the WWII model) but forcing people to utilize Bogue/Casablanca model replenishment "carriers" is equally valid. I agree 100% with this, and couldnt have written it better. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhaseDragon Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 I would like to see an order similar to the FUEL Split order add-on for the RN order specifically aimed at Fighters and Drones. If you want to re-supply your fleets you could merge the fleets into 1 fleet then separate out the empty ships using this new order to NOT TRANSFER fighters/drones. Or we could just have a order similar to the SUPP order which allows transfer of fighters from one fleet to another. While the debate over the crating and/or effectiveness continues...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.