RE-[FT] airless bodies

K.H.Ranitzsch wrote-

>If you want to keep it simple in game terms, you could argue that
>missilles and fighters taking off from a planet or moon are equipped
with
>extra boosters or drop tanks that provide enough energy to reach free
>space. Thus, they could be treated exactly like any other missiles or
>fighters.

Doh, why didn`t I think of this simple way to accout for fighter
launching
that doesn`t afect the game?

For SML`s (or any missiles), just reducing the range (or for MT
missiles,
the range in the first turn) would be a easy way to accunt for the
thrust
used to climb out of the gravity well.

Also, a question about the reative cost`s of fighters vs ship, in a
strategic sense, (not a tactical sense which is what FT is). When you
compair the cost (and building times) of fighters compaired to ships,
would
it become cost effective to hord or retreat early with your starships,
whereas the fighters because of their small size and relative cheapness
(and
quicker replacement/build time), would be cost effective to lose your
entire
fighter compliment to take out a enemy ship? The thoght for this came
from
the discusions for striking the colour, and rereading "in death ground"
(I`ve lost count the number of times I`ve read this novel, or anything
by
webber) where one of the fighter pilots was saying something like "the
brass
do worry about bringing pilots home after a mission, but in the end,
fighters and their crews are expendable and replaceable" (sorry, I know
I
totally misquoted there, but it is the gist of what he`s saying).

BIF
"yorkshire born,yorkshire bred,
strong in arms, thick in head"

Oerjan Ohlson wrote

>What you say sounds similar to saying "I won't read the Honor
>Harrington series before it's finished" :-/

If you do, your the only person with the willpower to do it that I`ve
talked