interceptors

> IMO, interceptors should be faster (that's why they're called

Not necessarily--they are catching fighters coming towards them, not
running away from.

> should also be tougher to kill

good idea

In message <003b01c1f9e2$66fa7660$1156c943@pavilion>
> "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

> > IMO, interceptors should be faster (that's why they're called
I've been bouncing around the idea that a good part of the interceptor
bonus comes from their increased agility, which _should_ make them
harder to kill as well.

In air combat an interceptor is usually a fast plane designed to catch and
kill bombers, not duel other fighters.

> Laserlight wrote:

> IMO, interceptors should be faster (that's why they're called

G'day,

> Since inteceptor fighter groups cannot attack ships then we

For what its worth I think they're OK as is for what you pay. They take out
their first target and will hold up another group in the next turn (as its
caught in the dogfight and can't skip out of it whether the interceptors die
or not). For vector games (which usually only last about 6 turns) that's
usually enough. As to multi-roled ones I prefer heavies above all else,
and Derek has tried his hand at Heavy Interceptors and Heavy Attack etc (just
add cost of being heavy and having specialised role to the basic frame cost...
may not be perfect but it has worked OK for us).

Cheers

> > > IMO, interceptors should be faster (that's why they're called

Sure, make them do what you want, but make sure you cost them correctly by
adding all the additional costs for those modifications.

The game doesn't say interceptors just hit other fighters better, it says to
hit other fighters better while loosing the anti-ship ability, it costs
the same as a normal fighter group, a subtle but important difference. Since
the points involoved are only dealing with those changes, don't play
interceptors with additional ablities but use the normal 'interceptor' cost,
that would just increase the problems with fighters. If in your universe
'interceptors are also harder to hit plus faster, play them that way, but make
sure you cost them per their abilties to balance things out (or attempt to
anyway).

that's the modern definition, not necessarily the one intended for the
fighters in question in the game.

3B^2

> Michael Llaneza wrote:

> In air combat an interceptor is usually a fast plane designed to catch

Taking that a step further using a modern analogy:

Some modern air-superiority fighters (like the F-14) use bigger, longer
ranged missiles in the superiority role, but are still roughly the same speed
as other fighters (Mach 2), so perhaps instead of increasing the move, you
could increase the attack range to 12" vs. other fighters,
which would simulate longer ranged beam/missiles that don't have enough
to punch ship hull but enough to disable/destroy fighters.  This would
allow interceptors to attack non-interceptors with a degree of safety,
but they would still have to expend CEF for the extra moves and combat firing.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----

> At 9:50 AM -0600 5/13/02, B Lin wrote:

Depends on your generation. The initial expectation with AIM-54 is
that it was great. But in reality, it's pretty much traveling on inertia alone
on the longer side of it's flight path. That given, it looses a lot of energy
if it tries to hit a maneuvering target. A Dumb Cruise missile or big slow
Bear (perhaps a Backfire as well given it's size) is going to be far easier to
engage with an
AIM-54/F-14 pair than say an FB-111 would or a smaller Super Etendard
would. Especially given RWRs and their ilk.

Perhaps a walk over to sci.military.aviation would be in order.
There's a few ex-fighter pilot types over there that could account
for the engagement envelopes of the longer ranged AAMs.

My point is though that the bigger longer range stuff assumes the target
doesn't spend as much time maneuvering or doesn't have as much of a capability
to maneuver. Any system can reach out and touch a fighter at extreme range
(see Talos engaging Migs circling Hanoi from ships 100 Miles away in the
Tonkin Gulf) but that all assumes the fighter doesn't know something is
incoming. The longer the range, the longer the fighter has time to react.
Something small can generally react.

I'm not saying I dislike the idea of Interceptors engaging at 12", I'm just
observing additional variables to account for.

Going further - is the 12" range enough of an advantage, that the normal
+1 to the die roll should be eliminated to keep the point cost the same.
And how much advantage is 12" attack range worth? An extra point per fighter?

Perhaps the PSB for long-range anti-fighter weaponry might be a larger
missile with pumped-x-ray lasers in multiple directions (similar in
thought to the larger frag warheads of today's missiles), that is
multi-staged - a big booster base for inital velocity, but is ballistic
for most of the flight path but retains enough fuel in the upper stage for
some last second maneuvering to get into effective range.

-- Binhan

> -----Original Message-----

> At 10:43 AM -0600 5/13/02, B Lin wrote:

Here's a question. How does that work? If the fighter is in 12" range it makes
an attack and can stand off or that is it's engagement range and is moved
closer in?

I'd almost like to see a dual mode interceptor. It'd give better tactics an
advantage. Specifically, if the interceptor engages from stand off range, then
it has a lower chance of hitting, but can stay out of engagement range from
the target (assuming it's not an interceptor). Or it can close and fight with
increased chances for success and casualties.

> Perhaps the PSB for long-range anti-fighter weaponry might be a

Perhaps a pod with terminally maneuvering submunitions?

I've always assumed it was a loadout difference, say the difference between
an F/A-18 loaded out for a MigCAP as opposed to an anti-shipping strike.

--
Ray

> At 09:49 5/13/02 -0500, you wrote:
Since
> the points involoved are only dealing with those changes, don't play
cost,
> that would just increase the problems with fighters. If in your

> I've been bouncing around the idea that a good part of the

But I think interceptors are too costly as is. I can pay 18 NPV for
inteceptors that cannot attack ships vs 18 for standard fighters that can act
as interceptors or attack ships? I'll take the standard fighters. Maybe all
but interceptors are too cheap?

Beth, Our group generally agrees, if you're going with fighters take the
Heavies.  And, they're probably better anti-fighters than interceptors;
they have a better chance to effectively engage two squadrons instead of 1 (in
two rounds). I've had several interceptor squadrons killed off

by the first squadron they attacked.

On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:31 AM, GBailey@aol.com [SMTP:GBailey@aol.com]
wrote:
> Our group generally agrees, if you're going with fighters take the

If you run the odds of Interceptor vs Heavy, it still favours interceptors.
Heavies kill interceptors at a ratio of 0.8 Interceptors kill Heavies at a
ratio of 0.9 Interceptors kill standards at a ratio of 1.1

You get more utility out of Heavies which is why they're preferrable for
general games.