excruciatingly detailed fighter/missile interaction sequence

> On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 01:40:48PM +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

Yes, on a more detailed reading of the FB2 turn sequence I'm inclined to agree
with you.

> Shouldn't interceptors be more effective against missiles,

Thanks; good to get feedback...

> We assumed that screening fighters can act normally without breaking

Yes. As long as they stay within the 3", they're just another fighter group
which happens to have an extra defensive role.

> Fighters attacking other fighters at long range attack before

That's what I thought, but: FT p.17. "If a Fighter Group is within range (6")
of an enemy Group which is also within its arc of fire... then it may attack
the enemy Fighters exactly as it would an enemy warship... the enemy Group may
only shoot back if its fire arc will bear... (para) If, however, the Groups
are moved so that their bases are actually TOUCHING, the two Groups may
'dogfight'..."

I don't see this capability removed in the FBs, though I would be
inclined to say that since it's a use of the anti-ship capability it
isn't available to interceptors (short-range weapons only), and that
attackers and torpedo fighters are at the usual disadvantage (because they
can't use their heavier weapons).

> Oh, and a slight contradiction.

It made it easier to keep track of fighters, which given that we had a
Jeanne d'Arc on table was a Good Thing. :-)