Prev: Re: [GZG] Re: Gzg-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 10 Next: Re: [GZG] Feedback on Beta Fighter Revisions

Re: [GZG] Feedback on Beta Fighter Revisions

From: "john tailby" <John_Tailby@x...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:54:23 +1200
Subject: Re: [GZG] Feedback on Beta Fighter Revisions

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lDo fighters get to
"pin" enemy fighter squadrons in a 'dogfight and prevent them moving?

I thought fighter groups just ended movement within 6Mu and opened fire.
I don't think of that so much as a dog fight. More like long range
combat with missiles.

If 1 mu = 1000 kms or even 1km that would be a very long range to hit a
target with a railgun round from one fighter to another.

The best radar systems today don't have separate scan and track modes
because it gives away the fact thet they are locked up and the target
can evade. Why can't the firecontrol represent how sphisticated the
ships comupter system is at calculating intercept vectors rather than
it's own active sensor intensity. With lightspeed weapons it is very
likely that you might know that you had been detected and then a light
speed particle stream passes through your fighter.

I'd expect that a fighter would be evasively manouvering with a
randomised course change all the time to prevent being zapped by capital
ship weapons.

My groups experience was that it was too complicated to record evasions
for different groups of fighters. We allow ship weapons to target
fighters but with a flat -2 drm representing the ability of the fighters
to dodge. 

Fast and simple and produces the effect that massed ship weapons can
damage fighter groups but that specialist anti ordnance are still
better.

Prev: Re: [GZG] Re: Gzg-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 10 Next: Re: [GZG] Feedback on Beta Fighter Revisions