Re: Earthforce Sourcebook Question for Jon

Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Sorry, I don't agree with you. I won't say you are "wrong", because
this is
> SF after all and we can all do pretty much as we want anyway. If you
feel
> that the original FT (and EFSB) fighter movement is a  better  model
for B5
> games, then use it by all means. However, in FT itself the use of the
MT
> fighter movement gives (IMHO) a better balance to the game, and
requires
> more tactical thought on the part of the player; if you play well and
> anticipate your opponent's actions, it is quite easy to place your
fighters
> within their 6" reaction distance - of course, he is trying to
outthink YOU
> at the same time.... :)
> 
> To me, this is the kind of thing that makes play more interesting,
rather
> than just a die-rolling exercise.
> If you want PSB to "justify" it, then yes, fighters are faster - but
they
> also have much smaller reserves of fuel, and once committed to an
attack
> vector thay may not have enough to radically change it in response to
some
> sudden evasive move by the target ship.
> 
> Jon (GZG)

The big problem I have is that I don't see this "sudden evasion
maneuvering" happening in Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the
Jedi, Battlestar Galatica, Robotech, Starblazers, or Babylon 5.  In
fact, the only Sci Fi I know where it can happen is Star Fleet Battles. 
This is also one of the reasons why I don't play SFB.  I like fighter
endurance.  I see this in Sci Fi.  If fighter defenses were beefed up,
fighters wouldn't be out of line.  Take the gloves off the PDAF's and
ADAF's.  Let them shoot at any fighter squadron in range.  This will
force opponents to pick off escorts first before sending the fighters
after what the escort is defending, or face massive fighter loss.

IAS