Re: Fighter Balance Issues (LONG)

More unnecessary complications.  How is someone gonna keep track of an
opponents 6 fighter groups' endurance after two pints?

At 08:32 AM 2/17/98 +0000, you wrote:
>>On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:32:35 +0000, Ground Zero Games
>><jon@gzero.dungeon.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>I like it! I haven't thought through all the implications, but it does
>>make an interesting compromise. I had no problem with the movement
>>system in MT but some did. This might make a good mix that everyone
>>could live with.
>>
>>
>>Allan Goodall        agoodall@sympatico.ca
>>
>>"Once again, the half time score,
>> Alien Overlords: 142,000. Scotland: zip."
>>  - This Hour Has 22 Minutes
>
>
>Glad you like the idea - if anyone feels like trying it in play, please
let
>us know the results!
>The PSB feels right to me - to conserve power for combat manoeuvring,
>fighters will commit themselves to an approach vector based on where
they
>think the target will be when they arrive, but if the target changes
course
>radically and they see they will not make the intercept they are agile
>enough to make the necessary sudden course change, but at the penalty
of
>using a lot of precious fuel/power. Combined with upping fighter basic
>movement to 24" or even 36", this should make fighters able to chase
down
>any but the fastest-moving and most agile ships, but at a price.
>
>Jon (GZG)
>
>
>
>