RE: Its Doctrine, Scouting and Tactics not Fighters

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> [mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Brian
> Bilderback
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 5:36 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: Its Doctrine, Scouting and Tactics not Fighters
>
>
>
>
> I'm amazed.  The world is ending.  Ryan and I see eye to eye.
>
> Out of curiosity, has anyone considered one change to
> tactics/rules that
> would be generic, would give you a resort against
> fighters, AND makes sense?
>   What happens to fighters if they're in a hostile
> system, and their
> carrying ship(s) get destroyed?  That should have a
> very serious effect on
> morale at BEST.  Maybe some rules regarding these
> circumstances would help
> (I can't recall if the rules already address this).
> Then a valid strategy
> becomes going after the carrier and killing it.  If
> you can do this before
> the fighters kill you, there should be some reward in
> game terms.
>
We tried something similar as a house rule in our group for
campaign games...this was under FT2/MT though.

If the Fleet is in hostile territory and loses all fighter bay
equipped ships, fighters roll 1d6+2 for morale (instead of 1d6).
If they fail 3 times in a row they eject and await pick-up.

It never got used as there was an opposite argument that
fighters knowing that they have no way of bringing their fighter
home would be more likely to press the attack in the hope that
their side won and would be the force picking up bailed out crew
at the end of the battle.

Rather than expand on the rule for racial/cultural modifiers,
scenario modifiers (homeworld defence for instance), we dropped
it.

Rgds,

Alfie