Re: Stealth Fighters
From: Thomas@s... (Thomas Payne)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 02:04:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Stealth Fighters
In message <961127214808_1553484983@emout13.mail.aol.com>
BJCantwell@aol.com writes:
> Great guys, exactly the sort of feedback I wanted.
>
> So the general opinion is that these buggers are a little too
powerful.
> Maybe they should have endurance -1 to reflect the smaller payload of
> stealth fighters. Also, how about making the fighters -1 in all
> fighter-fighter attacks (ranged or dogfight). My thinking on these is
that
> they are not impossible to see and attack, just much harder, so that
by the
> time an enemy has achieved a firing solution, the fighters will have
launched
> their attacks. There would be less defense against them, but isn't
that the
> whole point of a stealth design? Fighters and dedicated Aegis ships
deployed
> ahead of the primary targets are the best choices. An Aegis (ADAF
equipped)
> ship which was not the target of the fighters would be able to fire on
the
> fighters on its turn exactly as normal. However, if the stealth
fighters
> were targeting the same ship, the fighters would get to fire first,
instead
> of taking the defensive fire before their attack. ANy surviving point
> defenses could then attack the fighters, presumably made more visible
by the
> emmisions of their attack.
>
Perhaps change the dogfight rules slighty; make it so that the stealth
fighters
get to fire _before_ the other fighter squadron, but give any fighters
attacking them a +1 to their dice rolls (i.e. hits on a 3+) due to weak
armour.
> Any other ideas?
>
> Later
>
> Brian
>
>
Tom Payne
"Air Columbia; why fly, when you can float?"