fighters (shorter than the last rant)

1) Rolling all PDS kills then applying would 
require an algorithm for distributing kills, 
especially if using morale rules. I suspect the 
net result might be balanced, but I don't know. 
Removing evenly might be fine, but it could 
mean no fighter groups attack (all having low 
numbers left) or all fighter groups attack 
(having five or so left) with some good rolls 
whereas in the uneven distribution, some would 
be wiped out and others full strength so you 
might get a more median result. Dunno, maybe 
not. Worth a go.

2) Laserlight, sounds like people are _already_ 
playing 14000 different games, so why not 
harness that?

3) Beth (I think it was you): I disagree with 
<lister unknown>'s claim about interceptors 
being heavy (isn't really that necessary) but 
they should be fast. You're thinking closed table 
otherwise. Assume I have a carrier somewhere 
and another ship somewhere else. The enemy 
decides to go after the other ship. If my 
interceptors aren't faster, they might not be 
able to intercept (their whole purpose) the 
enemy swarm. Interceptors are generally (in 
our modern world) quite quick as they aren't 
always just undertaking carrier protection 
missions (in which case they'd be called gaurds 
or something rather than interceptors...) but 
are actually streaking out to intercept enemy 
fighter strikes on _other_ targets. Speed is of 
an essence there. No use arriving after the 
enemy unloads. Of course, this will be far more 
apparent in the operational level game where 
one is manouvering in a system sized 
environment....

T. 
PS - Chris, "mostly dead" - that's the 
description of our P.M. from the neck up. 
---------------------------------------------
Thomas Barclay
Co-Creator of http://www.stargrunt.ca 
Stargrunt II and Dirtside II game site

No Battle Plan Survives Contact With Dice.
-- Mark 'Indy' Kochte