Re: Fighter Missiles and such

>
>Hi,
>I would like to know what you think:
>Super heavy fighters:
>	These fighters act as if level 2 screens screen them.
>		Cost: 4 Eff: 3

I fought against Iceberg's Stealth-2 Fighters (from his New Isreali
stats)
last night. 3 squadrons of these damned Stealth-2 fighters, which acted
as
if they had level-2 screens, mauled me hard, and I *barely* managed to
take
out 2 of the three squadrons before they ran out of combat endurance!

>Ultra heavy fighters:
>	Level 3 screens screen these fighters.
>		Cost: 6 	Eff: 4

Aside the fact there are no level-3 screen anythings anymore, these
sound
even more ugly and ugly. One'd almost never be able to defend against
them.

>Mega heavy fighters:
>	These fighters act as if they had level 4 screens, that is they
can't be
>damaged by any beam weapons on a modified roll of less than 6.
>		Cost: 8 Eff: 5

I'm not going against these!

>Advanced propulsion:
>	For those who want more variation with there fighter's speed and
endurance.
>		Cost: (((Endurance+1)/2)*(Speed/6))-3
>		Eff: ((Endurance+1)/2)+(Speed/6)-3
>	Example:
>		A person is designing an ultra long range SWAC
(Endurance 11, speed 6)
>		Cost:	(((11+1)/2)*(6/6))-3
>			(((12/2)*(1))-3
>			(6*1)-3
>			6-3
>			3
>		Eff:	((11+1)/2)+(6/6)-3
>			(6+1)-3
>			4
>Internal fighter weapons:
>	For those of you who want lots of firepower:
>	Cost:		((average damage)*3-1.25)*(Range/6)
>	Eff:	((average damage)*2-1.5)*(Range/6)
>	
>	Example:
>		The NAC scientific community has come up with a missile
that can lock onto
>enemy fighters, it has 66% chance of killing a fighter, it has a range
of 9
>MU.
>		Cost	1
>		Eff	0

Maybe. Maybe not. It's adding, for me at least, a layer of complication
I
was assuming had been originally abstracted into the game system
already.
I'm mostly happy with the current FB/MT fighters (except Noam's d*mned
Stealth-2s :P ). But that's just me. Let's see what everyone else has to
say...

Mk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 
Dr T: "I'm speechless"

Indy: "No you're not; you're still talking"