Re: "High Resolution" FT

>That's exactly why - too short IMO. A battle with a destroyer and two
>frigates per side  is really un-interesting at the FT scale. Two
cruisers is
>no better, and a destroyer or frigate duel is laughable. I started 20
years
>ago with SFB, and while the ruleset quickly grew to hideous levels, I
always
>had fun with single-ship duels.

Ack! Say no more about SFB. I also used to be an avid player, even 
after the rules became huge. I realized after time that I didn't 
really like anyone else who played the game. They were all rules 
weenies.

>I liked the idea in the alternate core system rules, z'all.

Good enough reason if you ask me!

>"Maintain attack" also forces the additional CEF burn.

But it only forces 1 CEF burn for both the move and attack, which 
gives prolonged endurance for more attacks. Doing the other way MIGHT 
force a CEF to move, and another would be expended in the 
"continuing" attack.

>Record-keeping, mostly. You'd have to trak half-hits on each group,
which
>could be a pain. I think the round-up on PDS is a balancing factor to
the
>increased effective range of fighters.

Since you're only talking about smaller battles anyway, the extra 
record keeping shouldn't prove too burdensome, and it does further 
help cancel out the "luck" thing.

The reason I make an issue of it at all is that the most common 
result of a combined PDS shot for small ships is "1." This will 
always round up.

All you really would need to do is make a nifty graphic for the 
fighter squadron (which would also add to the visual appeal ;-) with 
two boxes for each fighter. Simple mark and go.