Re: excruciatingly detailed fighter/missile interaction sequence

On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 01:40:48PM +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
>Actually we interpreted the FB1 sequence to run like this when a
missile
>attacks (it seems pretty clear, at least to us):
>[snip]

Yes, on a more detailed reading of the FB2 turn sequence I'm inclined to
agree with you.

>> Shouldn't interceptors be more effective against missiles,
>> attackers less effective, and so on? Or is this a matter of
"manoeuvre
>> in close and fire with basic weapons"?
>While it doesn't say so in FB1 we do apply the "interceptors add 1 to
their
>roll...attack fighters must roll a 6" etc to attacking missiles not
just
>dogfights. Its worked just fine for us, so if you want to play it that
way
>it doesn't seem to mess anything up. 

Thanks; good to get feedback...
 
>> We assumed that screening fighters can act normally without breaking
>> from their close patrol of the ship they're screening, but still
can't
>> engage in combat twice in a turn.
>When you say act normally, do you mean dogfight/intercept missiles
coming
>into attack the ship they are escorting?

Yes. As long as they stay within the 3", they're just another fighter
group which happens to have an extra defensive role.

>> Fighters attacking other fighters at long range attack before 
>> dogfights start. (Or is this purely an initiative thing, 
>> based on which fighter group is activated first?)
>I'm sorry I don't quite understand what you mean here? For fighters to
>attack fighters they have to dogfight (its just the name given to any
>fighter vs fighter action) - you allocate who is fighting who and where
>based on initiative, but there are no "long range attacks" per se.

That's what I thought, but: FT p.17. "If a Fighter Group is within
range (6") of an enemy Group which is also within its arc of fire...
then it may attack the enemy Fighters exactly as it would an enemy
warship... the enemy Group may only shoot back if its fire arc will
bear... (para) If, however, the Groups are moved so that their bases are
actually TOUCHING, the two Groups may 'dogfight'..."

I don't see this capability removed in the FBs, though I would be 
inclined to say that since it's a use of the anti-ship capability it 
isn't available to interceptors (short-range weapons only), and that
attackers and torpedo fighters are at the usual disadvantage (because
they can't use their heavier weapons).

>>Oh, and a slight contradiction.
>>FT p16 says...
>>FB2 p5 says...
>I know you were only using human stuff, but even then I'd say FB2
overrules
>FT regardless.

It made it easier to keep track of fighters, which given that we had a
Jeanne d'Arc on table was a Good Thing. :-)