Re: Missile Balance [for Jon]

At 08:50 04/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
>sprayform.dev@netwales.co.uk writes:
>
>@:) >	Watch out with rules like this.  My group played around with
>@:) >increasing the effectiveness of *DAF and the results were that
>@:) >fighters got massacred. 
>@:)
>@:) But that was why I suggested the re-squading of the single
>@:) returning fighter [re separate email on fighters]
>
>  I read that message but did not understand it.  If you were
>suggesting that a single fighter should somehow turn into six, that's
>obviously nonsensical.  If you were suggesting that a single fighter
>can operate as a squadron, well, that's already the case (a weak
>squadron to be sure, but they can still do squadly things).  If you
>were suggesting that reduced squadrons can be combined into more
>complete squadrons, I don't think that's explicitly stated in the
>rules but it makes sense.  It doesn't convey a great advantage for
>fighters.
>
>  In short I couldn't make heads or tails of that message and that's
>probably why I don't understand this one.  Please re-explain.
>
>-joachim
>
Sorry about the delay but in short _yes I am !_I take it that (and am
happy
to be corrected by our .mil friends ) that carriers have more fighter
groups
in storage/in parts/un-flightworthy that can't be worked on in the bays
due
to the flights currently occuping the decks. Once the lone fighter,
although
I would return when down to 3, returns crews knowing the losses will be 
working in the bay getting flightworthy the losses for a re-crewed
flight
So in effect a carrier can only 'run' a set number of fighters but can 
replace losses back up to that set number.
 Hope this helps explain the message (I did write it in the small
hours!)

Jon (top cat)
SDL