RE: Heavy Fighter Technology

But then the problem is they have a major advantage against atmospheric
fighters and against ground flak.  
Do know how obscene a size 5 / armour 5 fighter can get in SG/DS?
Especially as they ignore all special damage chits in DS (including boom
chits).
For aerospace fighters, the Armour doesn't represent physical armour,
but
how survivable the airframe is.
For example, the modern A-10 Warthog I would class as following:
Size 2, armour 1, Firecon: Sup A-G, MDC/3, DFO pods.  With maybe a
special
rule that it can ignore the first *damaged* result, due to it's
reputation
of coming back with 1/2 the airframe missing.

Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Martin [SMTP:Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 12:36 PM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: Heavy Fighter Technology
> 
> Neath Southern Skies wrote:
> > Maximum armour for all aerospace fighters is 3 or 1 less than the
size
> class(whichever is less) under Dirtside/Stargrunt vehicle
construction.
> 
> I suggest that limit be removed for FT fighters.
> 
> Andrew Martin
> Tanks in space!
> ICQ: 26227169
> Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
> http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
> -><-