Re: RE: Re: Fighters

----- Original Message -----
From: <laserlight@quixnet.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 8:51 AM
Subject: RE: RE: Re: Fighters

>
> Let's rephrase the question as:
> "Some people want more of a early 1900's feel instead of a WW2 or
modern
feel
> to fleet actions.  What Optional rules would you suggest to tone down
fighters in
> those settings" etc

For early 1900s, you can very easily justify not allowing any fighters
at
all that are much more powerful than interceptors for attacking ships. 
The
tech simply wasn't available.  A suggestion would be that fighters could
indeed only hurt a ship for one point of damage on a 6 in that case, and
it
would fit the genre perfectly.	Although they should probably cost a lot
less, as well.

For a World War II environment, fighters in FT are actually too _weak_.
Subsequent to Pearl Harbor, aircraft carriers were the only vessels that
truly mattered in fleet actions at all.  The Japanese were forced to
withdraw at Midway for no other reason than they lost their four fleet
carriers out of the entire fleet of better than a hundred or more total
ships; everything else was just a turkey shoot.  FT PDS is far more
effective than that (and don't even get started on scatterguns), so if
it's
WW2 you want, fighters need to be made _better_, not worse.

E