Re: Bigger not always better--Take 2

<SNIP>

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?
<SNIP>

Actually everything is relative.  To make a proper FT analogy you would
also have to state that an escort or BB hit by the 6d6 Nova cannon
template will die in two hits either way and so it doesn't make a
difference whether you have an escort or BB.  The proper anaology for FT
is the WWII one where a destryoer would have a significantly difficult
time destroying a BB but could damage or cripple one with a torpedo or
lesser damage with 5" guns.  A BB on the other hand would find it
trivial
to destroy a DD with a single hit from an 18" gun or a broadside of 5"
guns.  Modern navies aren't just made up of many little craft carrying
nuclear warheads because a variety of response is required, not
overwhemling force each time.  That's one reason BB's have come back
into
US service is that while 16" guns are not as effective in naval warfare,
they can be invaluable in marine operations for preparing beaches and
bombarding areas up to 20 miles away without having to risk lives in
manned aircraft.  Aircraft carriers are still built even though they are
huge targets for nuclear strikes for similar reasons.  Things rarely
make
sense if you take them to extremes and I think it would make more sense
to
take more middle of the road examples.

--Binhan