Prev: Japanese/EU Fig pics Next: FT-Airless bodies

Re: [FT] AAR and Re: RE-[FT] Starfire...

From: devans@u...
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:58:27 -0600
Subject: Re: [FT] AAR and Re: RE-[FT] Starfire...

>Now B may use secondary movement to disengage from the dogfight. >If
it does so, Group B gets a free shot at Group A.

No, the other way around: A gets a free shot at B. The side which does
*not* disengage gets a free shot at the side which does disengage.


>If Group B reenters a dogfight with group B, all fire in the dogfight
is >simultaneous.

Group B dogfights itself? <g> Should be "If Group A reenters..."

It's becoming hilariously obvious just how often I'm filtering out
'I knew what they meant.'

Not that I don't depend on other folks to occasionally mind-read my
of course.

Here's an odd thing, though: If there's only *one* squadron per side in
the dogfight, they fire simultaneously according to FT2 p.17.

However, if at least one side has *more* than one squadron involved in
the same furball, the sides take turns firing one squadron at a time
and apply the damage immediately(...)

Funny, I thought it was on purpose. I know I've not been in many large
furballs, and assumed the far more common mano y mano, or squadron y
squadron, would be run faster/simpler. I don't have the book handy; how
order worked? Numerically superior shoots first? How about if dead even?

Course, at this point, I'm expecting to hear how everyone else ALWAYS
multi-squadron dogfights...

The Bugs didn't use SBMHAWKs in IDG.

Funny, if this were another list to which I subscribe, Legends of
Heroes, we'd be hearing spoiler-warning calls. ;->= Course, as you know,
won't read IDG until it's finished, and none of us should be holding our
breaths. Last word from Baen on Sept 22? *sigh*


-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon

One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad

Prev: Japanese/EU Fig pics Next: FT-Airless bodies