James,
"ThunderHawks:Actually, any flier with a high armour and high gunn=
ery
value. They should not be able to shoot down hoards of interceptors
tha=
t attack them. In general, these should have weaker armour. In SM
they were=
only 4+ armour while nightwings had 3+ (The highest flier
armour was the F=
irelord/harridan with a 2+)"
I agree that Thunderhawks are quite powerful,=
but they are also
expensive. When you mention that they shoot down hordes=
of
interceptors, it makes me wonder if you are playing them right. They
c=
an only declare one target each time they intercept or are
intercepted. So=
for instance, if I had two thunderhawks against ten
gargoyles, I could sho=
ot down only two gargoyles. Of course, with
their armour, those gargoyles =
are going to be real dead, but the other
eight will be mad...
What happens=
with is is three interceptors will go after the lone T-hawk. They will fai=
l to hurt it, then it will damage/ destroy one-two of them. We figured you =
could spread firepower against all aircraft engagning you, I may be wrong a=
bout this though. If attacked one, then that one would be really dead!
---=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------------
"Your incorrect assumptions are threefold.=
"
"You assume law still reigns in the Five Galaxies"
"You assume that we wo=
uld be bound by precedents and precepts from the last 10 million years."
"B=
ut your most incorrect assumption of all is to assume that we care."
=
-David Brin, Infinity's Shore
--------------------------------------------=
---------James Nugent----------------------------------------
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Thu Jul 10 1997 - 11:05:37 UTC