Re: [GZG] [FT] fighter mix

["john tailby" <John_Tailby@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Within the requirements of 6 squadrons of fighters for 120 points there 
isn't much room for upgrades beyond the effective mix that has already been 
suggested.

If you are playing the ships from the rulebook then they tend to have a 
pretty small PDS suite so there isn't much to be gained from being heavy.

I have seen it done with a light cruiser mounted one squadron of heavy fast 
torpedo bombers. They would reach out 48 inches and make their attack run 
against the enemy ship then whip back to the carrier for the refuel rearm.

I built a carrier with 4 similar squadrons and they killed a 150 mass 
battleship in one pass.

If playing against KraVak or SV opponents with access to scatter pack type 
weapons then the heavy upgrade is well worthwhile.

If you are worried about salvo missiles then you might do better having 2-3 
squadrons of interceptors and the rest torpedo bombers. 4 squadrons of 
torpedo bombers will ruin an enemy capital ships day while the interceptors 
in escort will supplement your point defence while your beams do the damage.

John


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregory Wong" <sax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] fighter mix


> I find it interesting that no one has suggested purchasing
> heavy fighters, fast fighters, or long-range fighters.
> Are they not worth the extra cost?  I guess fighters
> tend to go pop before they exhaust their endurance.
> And being a fast fighter doesn't help you in a dog fight.
> And heavies are just too expensive?
>
> --Greg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l


_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l