Re: PDS and fighters

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

That's why I've been playing around with the idea of giving both
fighters
AND ships the possibility for evasion.	It scales so that the large
ships
aren't so nimble, but little ships (and fighters) can divert thrust into
dodging incoming fire - but they have to make a tactical decision and
decrease the maneuverability of their ships to do so.

Randy

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:59 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
>
> One thing that always amazed me is how effective fighters are against
> ships..
>
> If you are looking at a ww2 model the carrier planes are hellcats,
> dauntless and devastator. The Hellcat is great against enemy planes
but
> rubbish against a warship and the others are the reverse.
>
> FT fighters are too good against both ordnance and ships.
>
> Droping the fighter and making people chose interceptors, attack
fighters
> and torpedo bombers means people have to make a choice about with they
are
> going to do with their fighter capability.
>
> In the Modern world the pattern is the same, even a F4 Phantom or F18
> Hornet has to make the decision about whether it is carrying air-air
> capability or anti ship capability and a Sparrow missile isn't any
good
> against a ship and an Exocet can't hit a plane (except by luck).
>
> Also it is a break in the game that a 6 mass fighter squadron can't be
> targetted by beam weapons, yet a 6 mass ship gets ripped apart. Are FT
> targetting systems so variable that a mass 1 missile and a mass 2 ship
have
> completely different target profiles?
>
>