Prev: Re: Fighters Next: RE: (OT)(SG2) A question, to ARV or not to ARV...

RE: Fighters

From: "Alfie Finch" <alfie.finch@b...>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 01:17:42 +0100
Subject: RE: Fighters

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> [mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf
> Of Ray Forsythe
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 1:10 AM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: Fighters
>
>
>  > I meant FSE...NAC has Minerva/A and Tacoma/A
> variants with ADFC
>  > as well :)
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
> Oh, ok.  Actually, does anyone find it slightly wierd
> that the most missile
> happy faction in FB1 has no ADFC designs listed at all?
>
In the Tuffley-verse design doctrine (FB1) it does say that they
have a lower priority on defence and that their larger ships are
designed to take a lot of punishment, as well as the general
focus on mobility with generally higher thrust factors.

Maybe they think they can out-manoeuvre or absorb anything
that's thrown at them ? :))

Rgds,

Alfie


Prev: Re: Fighters Next: RE: (OT)(SG2) A question, to ARV or not to ARV...