RE: [FT] AAR ESU vrs NAC

Under strict FB fighter combat:
1.	Once a squadron is engaged in dogfight they can do nothing else;
if
they attempt to disengage before destroying the enemy, they get a "free"
(unopposed) attack as they disengage.  He could have combat moved away
to
attack the ships, but would have suffered fighter casualties for fleeing
the
dogfight, followed by PDS casualties (can now be engaged as not
dogfighting!)
2.	In base-base contact dogfights, all attacks are now resolved
simultaneously.  If you use the old MT fighter rules for non-contact
fighter
attacks, it would alternate the same as ship fire.

Mostly it's a case of discussing how you want to resolve your fighter
combats *before* both sides engage, as different methods can require a
slightly different attack plan to get the most out of your fighters.

Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[Pirates] Dame Captain Washalot
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flynn Richardson [SMTP:Flynn.Richardson@unilever.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:49 AM
> 
> Questions Raised.
> 
> 1) Do fighters have to fight back? i.e. could the NAC attack fighters
> ignored the ESU fighters as just gone for the ships regardless? 
> 2) Do you have to designate all fighter attacks first? or can you wait