Re:

Noam Izenberg wrote:

>If you want _this_ bit of realism, fighters should have an
>easier/tougher time attacking a ship based on the other fire it's
>taking  from (and dishing out to) missiles and other ships. If you
don't
>
>then you're being arbitrary about the level of 'realism' you wish to
>employ and reject.

Let's face it, any rule is going to be arbitrary to some extent, but
that 
may be unavoidable to address the problem at hand satisfactorily.

>Perhaps basing the max
>numbers of fighter that can attack by the ships classification (and
>thus
>general size/mass).
>
>That introduces more Mass breakpoints in ship design

Unfortunately, it probably does.  That's a hazard in any system, since
we're 
dealing with artificial simulations, there's always going to be a
numerical 
loophole somewhere.

>But, my mother taught me not to take shots at other's ideas without
>presenting an alternative:

Your mother was a wise lady. :-)

>Each fighter group to attack rolls 'morale' even if it is a full
>complement. Each roll gets +1 for each successive group that attacks,
in
>
>addition to reductions from lost fighters. This can be interpreted not
>merely failed morale, but as a combination of that and fighters finding
>valid attack vectors harder to come by as more and more groups engage
>the target ships

This seems even more complex than the mass-based limit, and still mean
that 
the fighter advantage against small ships is not mitigated as greatly as

against larger ships.

3B^2

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.