Re: [OFFICIAL] Re: National Characteristics? AND EFSB question for Jon

Doug_Evans/CSN/UNEBR@UNebMail.UNeb.EDU wrote:
> 
> Oooo, the dreaded O-word! Shock of creeping evil empire-ism! ;->= Ok,
so it
> was appropriately used, and it was officially wishy-washy (subject to
> change at any minute). Feels weird in our laid-back atmosphere.
...(Snip)... (JTL)

XXXX 
     I have no problem with the word 'OFFICIAL' in communications
that Jon sends out.	The word indicates the direction of thought
and in no way implies/requires obediance.  (Lets face it folks,
We are all going to do our own thing.)	 JTL
 XXXX

> One possibility, and one I'd like to hear about but WON'T be testing
myself
> is to allow the fighters to move at the ships half way point. Problems
> include: you'd have to move, at least, all the possible target and
APDS
> ships halfway so that fighters would have a clear idea of what's
> important(book-keeping headache). Artificial 'obvious' movement of
some
> ships using maximum turn, though the fact that you are using maximum
makes
> obvious earlier makes sense, you have the weird case of max 1 pt turn
ships
> don't give away, max 2 pt give full turn away, max 3 pt give only
> direction, and max 4 pt is back to giving away full info.
> 
> *whew* Anything obviously wrong with what I just said?
> 
XXXXX
     Besides the fact that I didn't really understand it, nothing.
(I admit to being slightly brain dead and highly overstressed at
the present time.)   JTL

> Again, I'd like to hear how it tests out: I'm willing to fly FT II
> fighters; I prefer MT fighters, though. Choose your own PSB.
> 
> The_Beast

     I feel that the 'fighters move last' is the proper format
to use.   It just would not 'feel' right to have a mass 100, thrust
two ship outmaneuver a group of fighters.

Bye for now,
John L.