RE: interceptors

Taking that a step further using a modern analogy:

Some modern air-superiority fighters (like the F-14) use bigger, longer
ranged missiles in the superiority role, but are still roughly the same
speed as other fighters (Mach 2), so perhaps instead of increasing the
move, you could increase the attack range to 12" vs. other fighters,
which would simulate longer ranged beam/missiles that don't have enough
to punch ship hull but enough to disable/destroy fighters.  This would
allow interceptors to attack non-interceptors with a degree of safety,
but they would still have to expend CEF for the extra moves and combat
firing.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GBailey@aol.com [mailto:GBailey@aol.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 7:54 AM
> To: gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: FT: interceptors
> 
> 
> Since inteceptor fighter groups cannot attack ships then we
> rarely play with them and prefer the standard fighter as it
> has that multi-role capability.  The few times I've used
> inteceptors I've noticed that, yes, they kill the group they
> attack, but they themselves are so decimated that they
> aren't much of a threat to other groups any more.
> IMO, interceptors should be faster (that's why they're called
> inteceptors) so should move at 36 instead of 24.  They
> also should be tougher to kill by other fighters, treat as
> if level-1 screened vs other fighter types (i.e., "heavy",
> how does that work with the Kra'vak fighters?).
> 
> 
> Glen