RE: interceptors

I've always assumed it was a loadout difference, say the difference
between 
an F/A-18 loaded out for a MigCAP as opposed to an anti-shipping strike.

--
Ray

At 09:49 5/13/02 -0500, you wrote:
 >> > > IMO, interceptors should be faster (that's why they're called
 >> > > inteceptors)
 >> >
 >> > Not necessarily--they are catching fighters coming towards them,
not
 >> > running away from.
 >> >
 >> > >should also be tougher to kill
 >> >
 >> > good idea
 >> >
 >> I've been bouncing around the idea that a good part of the
interceptor
 >> bonus comes from their increased agility, which _should_ make them
 >> harder to kill as well.
 >
 >Sure, make them do what you want, but make sure you cost them
correctly by
 >adding all the additional costs for those modifications.
 >
 >The game doesn't say interceptors just hit other fighters better, it
says to
 >hit other fighters better while loosing the anti-ship ability, it
costs the
 >same as a normal fighter group, a subtle but important difference. 
Since
 >the points involoved are only dealing with those changes, don't play
 >interceptors with additional ablities but use the normal 'interceptor'
cost,
 >that would just increase the problems with fighters.	If in your
universe
 >'interceptors are also harder to hit plus faster, play them that way,
but
 >make sure you cost them per their abilties to balance things out (or
attempt
 >to anyway).
 >
 >Dean Gundberg
 >
 >Starship Combat News
 >The latest information on Space Games and Miniatures
 >http://www.star-ranger.com
 >dean@star-ranger.com
 >