Re: Fighter Missiles and such

><< Too much.  Too many fighter types.	What I would suggest would be
that
>traditional fighters
[,,,]
> 
> IAS >>
>Maybe, but there are a lot of fighter types in the world today, 

Aye, but overall how varied are their capabilities? Except for a few
specialized, they *essentially* are similar. A fighter is a fighter is
a fighter. A bomber is a bomber is a bomber. 

Besides, one trap people keep falling in is that of trying to compare
directly current naval/airforce assets/capabilities to those in FT. You
can draw analogies, but direct comparisons I don't think always work
that
well. There's sea/air combat, and then there's space combat.

Also remember to abstract, not bog yourself down in the details. (well,
okay, you don't have to, but I'm going to stay in the abstract and leave
the detail options like the ones you suggested to SFB playing :)

(I don't mean to slam SFB, it has it's place, and I like to play it -
when I
have a week to play a scenario - but it ain't what I'm looking for
necessarily
in FT)

>some of us
>like to try thing out with fighters, like checking out the tactical
advanges
>of int attack, or having an attack fighter with two torps or tring
fighters
>that have standard anti-fighter with no anti ship.

Well, there are already fighters that have standard anti-fighter w/no
anti-
ship capability - they be called 'interceptors'.  :)   The MT book has
torp
fighters already.

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

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