Re: Fighter Balance Issues (LONG)

[snip]
>Fighter endurance: It is apparent to me due to certain comments
>made during these communications that I have never really followed
>fighter endurance rules. (Place this comment in the "True Confessions"
>department.)
>Example:  A fleet carrier launches 2 fighters a turn for 3 turns,
>the carrier is doing speed 10.   The strike goes out makes three
>attacks (W/no losses) and returns to the carrier three moves later.
>Now the bad news,  the last combat occured at 36 inches from the
>carrier.   Good news, the fighters can make it back in three turns
>of movememt and a fighter is recovered on the third turn of movement.
>Really bad news, the other five fighter squadrons are considered
>lost due to fuel depletion and cannot be recovered.
>Notes:  If the last fight had been at 24 inches or less 2 groups
>could be recovered.   At 12 inches or less 3 three groups.
>At least three groups will always be lost under the current rules.
>House Rule: Eliminate the rule on endurance after combat.
>Notes: The elimination of this rule will make carrier operations
>conform to the real world (more or less).

I think I have already posted something on this a fair while back, but I
fully agree. The "three turn endurance after combat" rule is a problem,
and
should be ignored (that is an "OFFICIAL RULES PRONOUNCEMENT"...!)
Fighters that have exhausted their COMBAT endurance cannot fight, but
may
take as long as they like to return to their carriers. If they are
"bounced" by other fighters on the way back, then whether they defend at
a
penalty or cannot defend at all is up to personal choice at this point
(ie:
we haven't decided yet!!).

Another SUGGESTION (rather than a tested rule) is that we increase
combat
endurance to 6 turns rather than 3, but add an extra twist: if using MT
fighter movement (ie: before ships), a fighter group that finds itself
too
far from its target to attack may take an extra move (maybe 12") after
ship
movement, and then attack - but doing so costs it one turn's worth of
combat endurance (hence the increase to 6 CE, to give a few to spare).
This
may get round some of the criticisms of the MT move sequence, while
preserving the reasons we like it. Opinions?

Jon (GZG)