Prev: Re: [SG] ESU Spentznaz Next: Re: fighters (shorter than the last rant)

Re: fighters (shorter than the last rant)

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 10:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: fighters (shorter than the last rant)


--- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:

> <lister unknown>'s claim about interceptors 
> being heavy (isn't really that necessary) but 
> they should be fast. You're thinking closed table 

Not necessarily if you assume the fighters are either
1)escorting the strike in, or 2)defending the target
in the first place.  Which is the role I've seen most
interceptors in in Full Thrust.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience


Prev: Re: [SG] ESU Spentznaz Next: Re: fighters (shorter than the last rant)