Prev: Re: [SG2] Alternate Quick Combat Resolution (Modified Impact Versus Armour Procedure) Next: Re: [OFFICIAL] NEW FT SHIPS!!

Re: [FT] Yet Another, another fighters suggestion

From: "Don M" <dmaddox1@h...>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:29:00 -0600
Subject: Re: [FT] Yet Another, another fighters suggestion

Yeah it's great fodder for the rules lawyers amoung us lol.
Oh well nothing is ever quiet full proof is it?.........)

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: kevinbalentine@verizon.net 
  To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 6:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [FT] Yet Another, another fighters suggestion

  That's what I think too. Of course that probably means there is some
fatal flaw in there somewhere :-)

  On 4 Feb 2004 at 16:13, Don M wrote:
  > I hadn't thought of that but, it's simple and elegant enough to just
  > work....)
  > 
  > Don
  > 

  Original idea:

  > This is an off-the-cuff idea, but has anyone considered giving
  > warships a "built-in" fighter defense value? Something like, for
every
  > x mass of the ship, the ship gets y PDS systems?

Prev: Re: [SG2] Alternate Quick Combat Resolution (Modified Impact Versus Armour Procedure) Next: Re: [OFFICIAL] NEW FT SHIPS!!