Re: New NAC ship and a cheese question

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 DracSpy@aol.com wrote:

> Opps.

Don't you mean "oops"?

> >  sounds fine to me. it may not work, but it's legal and not entirely
> >  cheesy.
> >  
> 
> Okay, thanks.  What part is cheasy?

I'd say that it is potentially cheesy due to the significant departure 
from the standard NAC form of ships. Why would they convert a carrier to

carry all missiles? I could see MT missiles as a full compliment instead

of fighters, but SM's are very different, they'd be more inclined to 
convert an old battle wagon or something. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill	  NRA / DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------
-  No more limits on the 2nd amendment. Enforce the extant laws  -
------------------------------------------------------------------