Prev: Re: FT-Airless bodies Next: [SG2] Central Texas Players

RE-[FT] airless bodies

From: "bif smith" <bif@b...>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:35:26 -0000
Subject: RE-[FT] airless bodies

K.H.Ranitzsch wrote-

>If you want to keep it simple in game terms, you could argue that
>missilles and fighters taking off from a planet or moon are equipped
>extra boosters or drop tanks that provide enough energy to reach free
>space. Thus, they could be treated exactly like any other missiles or

Doh, why didn`t I think of this simple way to accout for fighter
that doesn`t afect the game?

For SML`s (or any missiles), just reducing the range (or for MT
the range in the first turn) would be a easy way to accunt for the
used to climb out of the gravity well.

Also, a question about the reative cost`s of fighters vs ship, in a
strategic sense, (not a tactical sense which is what FT is). When you
compair the cost (and building times) of fighters compaired to ships,
it become cost effective to hord or retreat early with your starships,
whereas the fighters because of their small size and relative cheapness
quicker replacement/build time), would be cost effective to lose your
fighter compliment to take out a enemy ship? The thoght for this came
the discusions for striking the colour, and rereading "in death ground"
(I`ve lost count the number of times I`ve read this novel, or anything
webber) where one of the fighter pilots was saying something like "the
do worry about bringing pilots home after a mission, but in the end,
fighters and their crews are expendable and replaceable" (sorry, I know
totally misquoted there, but it is the gist of what he`s saying).

"yorkshire born,yorkshire bred,
strong in arms, thick in head"

Oerjan Ohlson wrote

>What you say sounds similar to saying "I won't read the Honor
>Harrington series before it's finished" :-/

If you do, your the only person with the willpower to do it that I`ve

Prev: Re: FT-Airless bodies Next: [SG2] Central Texas Players