Re: Another tack on fighters

I'd have to agree with Beth on this one. The only time I found fighters
to
be a problem, was one time when I both had none of my own to counter and
also wasn't familiar with how to deal with them.

As to how the FB designs evolved, I'd say that they came out that way
because they all assume that fighters are included in a "balanced"
squadron.
It's only when one player goes fighter heavy and the other takes few or
none
that there's a problem.

Schoon

On 5/3/02 12:58 AM, "Beth.Fulton@csiro.au" <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

> It depends on how you like to play. If you like playing like Eric's
group
> does then its E, other playing styles will say its more a matter of D,
> though even then it is a breakpoint issue. Even numbers of fighter
groups or
> a few fighters on one side (upto about 5 if I remember correctly) is
fine
> even with absolutely as is FB, its when you getter higher differences
> between the fighter compliments (say about 10, though these numbers
are hazy
> guesses as I don't have my stuff with me) of the two sides that FB
designs
> don't seem to make good anti-fighter sense (the same can be said about
> missiles in some cases, but to a lesser degree). The various optional
rules
> and the design your own stuff will move where these breakpoints (5/10
etc)
> are, and so some groups won't feel there is a problem, while others
will
> feel its a whopping problem.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Beth