RE: [FT] Yet another question about fighters...

>My impression was while 'pointing the right way', they couldn't pour 
>on the thrust.

I think you're right, Doug - yes, the Starfuries maneuvered 
"properly" with attitude control jets, and could indeed "fly 
backwards" to shoot at pursuers - but their main drives were 
definitely rearward-facing only - spinning to fire lost you valuable 
acceleration time if you were trying to escape......

Jon (GZG)

>
>While their pursuers WERE. The whole time. Including while the 
>persuees were stopping thrust to take snap shots.
>
>Better example would be large fighters with 360 turrets. You want 
>rules THAT fiddly, go ahead.
>
>Thanks, Jon! I'll cogitate a bit to see if I have any counters of my 
>own to be shot down, then post it to the Yahoo! group.
>
>Doug
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Samuel Penn [mailto:sam@glendale.org.uk]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:01 AM
>To: gzg@firedrake.org
>Subject: RE: [FT] Yet another question about fighters...
>
>  On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:36:09 +0100, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
>  wrote:
>>  The use of the term "free shot" is, in hindsight, a little
misleading
>>  - what I was attempting to convey was not an ADDITIONAL attack, but
a
>>  volley of shots without risk of return fire - if one player moves
into
>>  dogfight contact with an enemy group (or if resolving an ongoing
>>  dogfight from a previous turn), and that enemy decides not to hang
>>  around and engage in the dogfight then the attacking group gets to
>>  fire at them anyway as they disengage - with the disengaging group
NOT
>>  being able to shoot back (they are pointing the wrong way and
pouring
>>  on the thrust!).
>
>  And if you're in a Starfury, pointing the right way and pouring on 
>the thrust?
>
>--
>  Be seeing you,
>  Sam.