1) Rolling all PDS kills then applying would require an algorithm for
distributing kills, especially if using morale rules. I suspect the net result
might be balanced, but I don't know. Removing evenly might be fine, but it
could mean no fighter groups attack (all having low numbers left) or all
fighter groups attack (having five or so left) with some good rolls whereas in
the uneven distribution, some would be wiped out and others full strength so
you might get a more median result. Dunno, maybe not. Worth a go.
2) Laserlight, sounds like people are _already_
playing 14000 different games, so why not harness that?
3) Beth (I think it was you): I disagree with <lister unknown>'s claim about
interceptors being heavy (isn't really that necessary) but they should be
fast. You're thinking closed table otherwise. Assume I have a carrier
somewhere and another ship somewhere else. The enemy decides to go after the
other ship. If my interceptors aren't faster, they might not be able to
intercept (their whole purpose) the enemy swarm. Interceptors are generally
(in our modern world) quite quick as they aren't always just undertaking
carrier protection missions (in which case they'd be called gaurds or
something rather than interceptors...) but are actually streaking out to
intercept enemy
fighter strikes on _other_ targets. Speed is of
an essence there. No use arriving after the enemy unloads. Of course, this
will be far more apparent in the operational level game where one is
manouvering in a system sized environment....
T.
PS - Chris, "mostly dead" - that's the
description of our P.M. from the neck up.
> 1) Rolling all PDS kills then applying would
I missed something--are we removing the Heavy advantage? If not, what
happens when a mixed group of Heavy and Standard attack? You can't roll for
all PDS kills if you don't know what number it takes to achieve a kill.
> PS - Chris, "mostly dead" - that's the
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> Did no one catch the reference to "Princess Bride"?
Actually, I did. But it's hard to go through a pilot's pockets for loose
change in space. ;-)
3B^2
_________________________________________________________________
> --- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:
> <lister unknown>'s claim about interceptors
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.
> Not necessarily if you assume the fighters are either
Traditionally Interceptors have been either big and fast with lots of stores
or somewhere below that. Their primary tactic wasn't to dogfight per say,
rather to make slashing tactics on the target at high speed.
This is how the P-38's worked best given their larger size and
additional armament. This is how the F-14's work. Certain smaller
aircraft are just better at the dogfight due to higher maneuverability.
For me, the ideal interceptor in FT is a Heavy Fast Interceptor. It's
very NAC (In the tradition of the P-38, F-14, F-22, F-15, Super
Sabre, Gladiator, etc) in feel. If anything, just a Heavy Interceptor
at minimum. Of course the F-22 would be a Fast, Heavy, Long Range
Interceptor....lots of $/£.
> From: Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> Traditionally Interceptors have been either big and fast with lots of
I think maybe we should get away from calling them Interceptors, since that
conjures up images of modern interceptors. The Interceptors in FT actually
feel more like superiority fighters. See the post I just sent out.
3B^2
> At 08:07 5/13/2002 +0000, you wrote:
Well, no, more accurately I forgot about heavies. Two kills to zap a heavy
maybe?
In message <20020513172822.60129.qmail@web12301.mail.yahoo.com>
> John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:
Well, I've used the for both, but the latter worked rather better than
the former (lousy dice rolls - the attack flight they were escorting
killed more enemy _fighters_ than they did!) :-(
> At 11:15 AM -0700 5/13/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
The problem is that we've already got a naming scheme confusion.
Fighters that should be called Attack Space Craft/Planes. If we call
them bombers, then we're running over my still to be played anymore
bomber idea with a mass 2-3 craft designed to run the role of the
B-24/25/17 in the maritime role. A B-25 Gunship role would be pretty
neat. 3 bombers that can rip open a DD in one pass just like the B-25
gunships did.
Additionally, its really a question of how far you really go in the
design and what compromises you make. The A-12 (The SR-71s older
brother) was being tested as an interceptor. It would have had an amazing
interception range if it were placed into production and service. Not exactly
a dog fighter by any means, it would have handled intercepts (from my
understanding) by means of ground control to a target with terminal guidance
using it's own radar and some
means of firing it's rather large nuke equipped AIM-54 like (really
it's predecessor iirc) missile at it's target.
Pretty much the ultimate in terms of interception capabilities with
almost zero response capability from the 'intercept-ee'.
> From: Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> The problem is that we've already got a naming scheme confusion.
Agreed. "Interceptors" as described in the game seem to be a nebulous cross
between a true Interceptor and an Aerospace Superiority Fighter --
essentially a craft designed to engage other similar-sized craft.
> Fighters that should be called Attack Space Craft/Planes. If we call
No comment on that idea, but I will say that the problem with using the term
"Bomber" is just the same as the problem with "Interceptor" -- people
will confuse their conception of the definition of "Bomber" with what it's
intended to mean in the game. What's needed is a set definition of terms, and
a set of terms that matches the intended game effect.
3B^2
> --- Ray Forsythe <erf2@gte.net> wrote:
> Well, no, more accurately I forgot about heavies.
Heavy fighters are only 25 percent less likely to be kills in combat, not 100
percent.
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
> --- Ray Forsythe <erf2@gte.net> wrote:
Or maybe not.
After all hits are allocated, subtract one or two from the heavy squadron?