Prev: Re: hyperspace (was: cloaking device rules) Next: Re: Mark's Minis

Re: Fighter Numbers/Regroup Option

From: Mike Miserendino <phddms1@c...>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:25:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Fighter Numbers/Regroup Option

Mike Wikan wrote:
>I think they were postulating Fighter attrition due to combat. The 
>only use for smaller squads I can think of is to divide the enemies 
>PDAF attacks into smaller sections, or to attack more targets.

Seems like a good tactic.  Attacking a ship with limited fighter
defenses
might provide a definite advantage for the fighters.  More attacking
fighter
groups might cause the enemy to divide his/her fire or leave some groups
completely alone.

On the bad side, this would be a definite disadvantage when engaging in
dogfighting combat against superior numbers.

joachim wrote:
>  One thing they never mention is whether you can combine damaged
>fighter groups into (fewer) new, undamaged groups.

Interesting idea.  A group would probably be limited to 6 fighters
again, so
you might only combine groups totaling <= 6.  Maybe have groups combine
by
touching each others bases at the end of movement and elect a regroup
option
which might say, prevent them from making an attack that turn since they
are
busy trying to form up.  Next turn, replace the bases with one base
indicating the new number of fighters combined and move/attack as
normal.
Any attacks made against the fighters during the regroup must be made
against an individual group, not the combined group until the following
turn.

>I don't know if
>there'd be much advantage to that anyway - maybe not, actually, since
>you would have less ability to pin down the enemy in dogfights.

A combined group will not be any less/more effective in dogfighting, but
will have an advantage if making a normal attack within 6" of an enemy
group.	The enemy group could attack ONE fighter group, but the divided
forces of the other player might ALL be able to attack the lone enemy
group.

Mike Miserendino

Prev: Re: hyperspace (was: cloaking device rules) Next: Re: Mark's Minis