Re: C batteries / PDAF

In message <970226171542_1779474670@emout18.mail.aol.com>
FieldScott@aol.com writes:
> Andy wrote,
> >  Scott wrote,
> >  >If I understand you, you want to use the standard designs, but you
play
> >  >without fighters and missiles and whatnot so the *DAFs are wasted?
> > 
> >  Yes.  The part that I thought people wouldn't like may not have
been
> >  stated explicitly: Even when I add fighters and missiles, I might
just
> >  leave out PDAFs and let C batteries do either thing (but not both
in
> >  one turn).
> 
> Well...*I* wouldn't do it, I think both fighers and missiles are
deadly
> enough without downgrading your defenses. But that's me. Give it a
shot. If
> you don't like it, you can always switch back. I'd think twice,
though,
> before bringing a *DAF-less fleet to a tournament or anything.  :-)

The way I read what Andy is writing, is that he would drop PDAFs from 
the game, and allow C-batteries to act *exactly* as a PDAF. None of 
that "only on a 6" rubbish, but your actual full-blown 4's-5's-2-kills-
for-a-6 PDAF gubbins.

I can see the appeal.

I might even suggest taking it further. Much like your (Scott's)
"needle firecons" (directing standard batteries like needle beams), one 
could have an "area defence firecon" that could direct one's C-
batteries against fighter groups exactly like ADAF's.

-- 
David Brewer