Prev: Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game] Next: Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:34:10 +0100
Subject: Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

Imre Szabo wrote:

> >The whole fighter balance issue is a tough one. For one thing, you
have to
> >take _all_ the fleets into consideration, including the Phalons with
their
> >PBLs. I suspect that by the time Nathan has played enough playtest
games to
> >find the problems and sort them out, the playtest lists' proposal
will 
> be out
> >in one form or another...
>
>The problem is that you allow integrated fighter attacks (...) without 
>integrated anti-fighter defenses.

Um... Mr. Szabo?

Your above statement is certainly correct for the *currently published*
rules.

Allan was, however, talking about the playtest list's proposal for
solving 
the fighter balance problems you describe - which makes your statement 
quite inaccurate indeed...

Kind regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

Prev: Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game] Next: Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]