Re: Fighter Numbers/Regroup Option

In message <199608272029.QAA21328@sparczilla.East.Sun.COM> you wrote:

> Mike Miserendino writes:
> @:) Scott Field wrote:
> @:) 
> @:) >Of course, I can't think of any real advantage to having 1
> @:) >squadron of 6 fighters, as opposed to 2 squadrons of 3 each, so
> @:) >there'd be no incentive to regroup? Is there?
> @:) 
> @:) Sure there is.  For dogfighting, it would be in your best interest
> @:) to attack with the maximum fighters allowed.
> 
>   If your purpose is to win the dogfight, this is true.  If your
> purpose is to protect a ship, I would think you'd want as many fighter
> groups as possible since they tie each other down in groups.	So your
> one fighter would delay six of theirs for one turn, and then it would
> get blown away.  But maybe your ship managed to get out of range or
> something in the meantime.

Actually, this will work whether you want to destroy the fighters
or just tie them up.

Split a group into six groups of one fighter. The first fighter
attacks the enemy group, and is probably destroyed (unless I'm
rolling the dice for the enemy, in which case he survives). But,
the enemy have lost one turn of endurance, plus can only destroy
at most one of your fighters. Next turn, you send in your second
fighter, and then your third. Assuming normal fighters, the enemy
has used all its endurance, and maybe two or three fighters. You've
lost at most three fighters, and have three more fighters who have
used no endurance.

Of course, having witnessed this tactic once, the enemy then splits
all its groups into single fighters. So no benefit is gained by
either side, and the game runs a lot slower because we now have
six times as many fighter groups to move.

I think it's probably best to say that fighter groups must have
six fighters (minus those lost to combat of course). Keeps things
simple.

-- 
Be seeing you,
Sam.