Re: Superships and Fighter capacity.

> > >Probably to stop people putting together fast, manuvuerable mini
> > >carriers that have nothing but a fighter group on board.

True, but like was said before, the smaller ship will be targeted.  As
for 
someone pointing out that a smaller ship would not have recovery/repair 
capability, not true.  The U.S.S. North Carolina carried two seaplanes
that 
were (obviously) deployed and recovered in the water.  Taking this
example to 
FT space, a smaller ship might have to actually "stop" and allow the
fighters 
to fly back to it fore recovery, possibly to dock on the side rather
than 
land in a bay.	I will admit that most likely the fighters would be 
dastically limited in number (say two or three) and probably some sort
of 
light attack craft.  Still, it would be interesting to play out.

> Why not allow smaller escort carriers the ability to carry smaller
light
> fighter types? No Heavy Fighters, Interceptors, etc...

Now this I like.  It would make since that a patrol/escort carrier would
only 
have light craft.

Another thought to "weaken" fighter groups would be to expand the
endurance 
rules.	I've noticed that in our fights, the fighters tend to buzz
around 
until they have a juicy, undefended target to attack before they waste
their 
"endurance."  Maybe have stated that fighters can only fly around for
say, 
six turns, before having to go back to base.

> The other thing to look at is the Assault Carrier type of craft...

Now there's a thought!	The 150 Mass Assault Carrier carrying twelve
wings of 
craft!

> ---		  Senator Koella Should go to JAIL !!		 ---
> --- Kill someone and leave the accident you should go to jail! ---

Oh look, another Tennessean; yeah, but when you're buddies with the
police, 
the judge, and everybody that could enforce that sentence, what do you
think 
the odds are?  I'd be happy if they'd recall him.