Re: Game717 Carrier Ops! over

[Jon Davis <davisje@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let me reply here.

Fighters should have a bit more autonomy than most units.  In
the case your stating, a better plan is to have the fighters
choose better targets among those not engaged.  It's in the code,
but not called upon for that instance.  I can fix it.

You can give orders to attack a specific enemy fighter group,
but if it finds itself out of range of that one, but in range of
another, it will take the initiative to attack.

Interceptors are very aggressive and will always attack fighters
in range, with the highest priority going to torpedo fighters.
Attack and torpedo fighters will never engage, but defend themselves
if attacked.

I do not want to go to a third phase of the game due to
game turn rate of processing.

Jon



>
>Problems noted:
>When all the fighters stack up at the same co-ordinates, only the first
>squadron in the stack is targetted by "Attack nearest fighter" orders,
>leading to massive overkill and the rest ignored.
>An "attack nearest unengaged fighter" order would be handy for this.
>  
>
Can orders be given to attack a spacific fighter group? Like in attacking

spacific ships?


True.. So what about a defense turn?  So there would be 3 sections  in one 
turn..
Would it be hard to impliment?
1. Movement and Launching (fighters and missiles)
2. Defending from fighters and missiles
3. Combat of ship to ship
 
Just as it is in normal table top games