<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5f8cbd48bb418cc3a2850de1be548e19@klenotic.org">... you
decided not to "consider" sending your lone cruiser to attack my
carrier group?
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Hmm.. At first, I thought I would get a BATS on that one. Then I
did some math, thought I would get a BS, and figured I would let
you have it. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Then I forgot about it....</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Now that you've reminded me about it, I see that the ISG refit I
thought bumped me past it is actually one I don't have yet.
Coupled with some weasel-wording in the scenario, I could probably
have a BATS if the HPM is actually a PAM. ("<i>The PAM <b>*may*</b>
be replaced with a HPM if the scenario year is Y178 or greater.</i>"
Emphasis mine.) Otherwise the BATS is 15 BPV over the
quarter-attackers-BPV mark.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Given that, It looks real attractive to fight it. I'm not sure
that I could win, even with a BATS. But I might kill something
before you drive me off.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So. Two questions come to mind:</p>
<p>- Do you think it's legit to not upgrade the PAM to an HPM? (e.g.
will you let me get away with it?) It could set a precedence
(either way), and I won't be upset at all if it's in your mind
that it constitutes a "thou shalt have an HPM if the year allows."</p>
<p>- Do you have some time to shake loose to let me shoot at you?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>--Matt<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>