Prev: FW: Bigger--not always better Next: FW: Micro Machines

Bigger not always better--Take 2

From: Paul Calvi <tanker@r...>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 01:21:59 -0500
Subject: Bigger not always better--Take 2

I guess I didn't explain myself well in my first post. What I was
attempting to do with my modifications was lower the power of the cap
ship. In my mind, reflecting modern naval practices, the SIZE of the
ship has NOTHING to do with its ability to carry lethal weapons (and
thus its striking power). A nuclear tipped cruise missile can be carried
on rowboat or on a BB. If hit, BOTH ships will sink. Take the weapons
down a notch and, if hit twice, both will sink. See what I mean? With
FT, BBs can carry enough A Bats to pummel an escort and the escort can't
do squat in return. If you just add more "torp" weapons that give high
damage with low mass than the Cap ships just stuff a ton of those into
themselves. There needs to be some OPERATIONAL restriction that keeps
the balance. The main one I can think of in FT is maneuverability (thus
my suggestion to make escorts harder to kill with A bats--if a Cap ship
loaded up on B Bats to counter escorts then it would get waxed vs
another CAP ship, thus the system is self balancing). A redo of the
scanning rules could also help as well. Am I making any better sense
now?

Thanks,
Paul 

Prev: FW: Bigger--not always better Next: FW: Micro Machines