Re: Its Doctrine, Scouting and Tactics not Fighters
From: Ryan M Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 12:44:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Its Doctrine, Scouting and Tactics not Fighters
At 9:35 AM -0700 5/6/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
>I'm amazed. The world is ending. Ryan and I see eye to eye.
:-P
We were agreeing over the weekend too you know...
>Out of curiosity, has anyone considered one change to tactics/rules
>that would be generic, would give you a resort against fighters, AND
>makes sense? What happens to fighters if they're in a hostile
>system, and their carrying ship(s) get destroyed? That should have
>a very serious effect on morale at BEST. Maybe some rules regarding
>these circumstances would help (I can't recall if the rules already
>address this). Then a valid strategy becomes going after the
>carrier and killing it. If you can do this before the fighters kill
>you, there should be some reward in game terms.
Again, it really seems to me that what is lacking is a cohesive
Morale effect for task groups as well as newer sensor and fleet
tactics rules. Carriers just don't launch strikes from visual range.
They launch a strike that has been planned due to intel indicating a
force is over there somewhere, beyond passive sensor range.
I've had a plan to sit down and make up something then play test it,
but a combination of the death of my mother, inheriting her house,
purchasing two armored cars, playing in a good AD&D campaign again
and getting involved with a cute goth chic has pretty much nixed the
chances of that getting done.
So do any of you single folks that don't have 10 pans on the stove
want to give it a shot?
--
Ryan Gill rmgill@mindspring.com
-------------------------------------------------
| | |
| O--=- | | |
|_/|o|_\_| | _________ |
/ 00DA61 \ |/---------\|
_w/|=_[__]_= \w_ // [_] o[]\\
|: O(4) == O :| _Oo\=======/_O_
|---\________/---| [__O_______W__]
|~|\ /|~| |~|/BSV 575\|~|
|~|=\______/=|~| |~|=|_____|=|~|
|~| |~| |~| |~|
1960 Daimler Ferret 1942 Daimler Dingo