Re: Star Wars Full Thrust

At 9:04 AM 8/20/96, Paul A Neher wrote:

>
> I classed the Interceptor as such because that is its primary design
> role. It was built to survive a dogfight with an x-wing ... hence my
> decision. Also a factor, all the data I have on them lists their
> weaponry as quad light cannons.
>

Having played a fair amount of X-Wing in my time...
I'd say the TIE Interceptor's main disadvantage for anti-shipping
attacks is the limited duration of its full weapon strength. Sure, four
cannons is great, but the TIE/In only has enough energy for a few
seconds of full firepower. Thats big trouble for an X-Wing, but not for
a starship. A squadron of six can maintain a constant barrage on the
target ship, so I can see calling it a fast fighter. Its a judgement
call, it depends very much on how you rate the other fighters. An
X-Wing has MUCH more anti-shipping power with its Poton Torpedoes
(fusion bomb ?)

> In regards to the small number of fighters ... I had to cut a lot out
of
> the works to be true to the game. I wanted to be true as possible to
> both, and that was a trick. An ISD has 160 gun batteries and 6 fighter
> squadrons of 12! fighters fer squadron. Unless an ISD became a mass
300
> supership, I had to do some serious lumping. I fretted and refumbled
the
> stats (what you have is like the 9th revision) as I found more data,
and
> that was the closest I could come. By any measure, and in comparrison
> tothe rest of the ships scaled together, I think the balance is there.
I
> wish I could get someone in the know to give them a crack. Our games
have
> had a good amount of the right flavor ... but accuracy?
>
> Paul

I ran out an ISD design once. I divided the number of batteries by five
and still wound up with a ~600 mas supership. If I can find my design,
I'll post it.

Michael Carter Llaneza
Madness takes its toll.  Please have exact change.
http://www.hypnotic.com/
Down, not across