Fighters

John A replied to me:

>> <lister unknown>'s claim about interceptors 
>> being heavy (isn't really that necessary) but 
>> they should be fast. You're thinking closed table 

> Not necessarily if you assume the fighters are either
> 1)escorting the strike in, or 2)defending the target
> in the first place.  Which is the role I've seen most
> interceptors in in Full Thrust.

True, except that is more a simple CAP role than a true interceptor
role. And with no operational level game with a larger board/map, you
don't appreciate the manouvering that goes on. The battle should pretty
much be an afterthought, the fight won before you arrive at the field
(or essentially a foregone conclusion) if you read your Sun Tzu and
apply it right - and in the case of space fighters, if you can't get to
the field, you're already defeated. Your interceptors should combine
fast and long-range to allow you to reach out and intercept enemy
strikes or loiter in gaurd roles more or less indefinitely (in FT combat
turns). 

When I think of an interceptor, I think of things like the F-22, the
F-14 with its AAMRAMs and whatnot, the old CF-104 lawndart (read:
Starfighter), etc. Some are large with long range standoff weapons. Some
are fast and manouverable (Starfighter). Either offers a viable
strategy. The next gen fighters (F-22, Eurofighter) may actually be
fast, tough/heavy, and manouverable all in one package, and be able to
carry extra fuel to buy the additional long range classification. 

How about this idea:
Std Interceptor -> Std Fighter cost, no effect vs. ships, better vs
fighters (standard rules)
Std Interceptor with Standoff package - add +1 (or 2?) pt per
interceptor, attack range 12" but attacks at range are resolved as
standard attacks (don't get interceptor bonuses), attacks in close get
bonus, no effect vs. ships
And of course you can buy fast/heavy/long range on top as desired...
making for one fighter that is very painful to lose if it strays to
close to a PB or an ADFC escort....