Re: Earthforce Sourcebook Question for Jon

Ground Zero Games wrote:
> 
> >Jon,
> >
> >Just out of curiosity. . .
> >
> >In the Earthforce sourcebook you went back to the Full Thrust method
of
> >moving fighters rather than the More Thrust method.	It's generally
held
> >(and is even stated in More Thrust) that moving fighters before ships
move
> >as in MT gives better play balance.
> 
> Actually, this was one of the few editorial changes that CE made to
the
> stuff I wrote for them! My original draft used MT movement for
fighters,
> but they decided they wanted the old FT system!  Personally, I agree
that
> the MT version is better.
> >
> >Was the change back to the FT method precisely because fighters in
Bab5
> >seem to be very deadly?  Or were there other reasons?
> >
> >By the way, the elegance of your vector movement rules and even the
> >non-vector rules in FT runs Jovian sunspots around that monstrosity
Agents
> >of Gaming produced.	I'm not saying their game has no merit at all,
but
> >their movement system is ridiculous as is their treatment of
fighters.
> 
> Thanks!! :)
> >
> >Now if only we could get you the license to produce the miniatures!
> >Nick Caldwell
> >clcaldwell@primary.net
> 
> Jon (GZG)

Jon, CE did it right.  You're wrong in MT for making fighters move
before ships.  Why???  How agile is a ship?   How agile is a fighter? 
Get the picture?  Fighters are fighters because they are so fast and
agile that they operate inside the descion loop of starships.  They can
see what a starship is doing and then change their course and speed to
chase it down.	You should have made other changes if fighters are out
of hand.  This also applies to missiles.

IAS