FW: Bigger not always better--Take 2

----------
From:  Mikko Kurki-Suonio [SMTP:maxxon@swob.dna.fi]
Sent:  Wednesday, March 26, 1997 4:03 AM
To:  FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject:  Re: Bigger not always better-Take 2

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Paul Calvi wrote:
> 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).

<<<Not strictly true, or nobody would bother with super carriers.>>>
Well carriers are different because they carry long range aircraft but
they are also my point.
 A CV can launch a little fighter that can almost take out a BB all by
itself. The CV isn't killing
the BB the fighter is.
<<<> With FT, BBs can carry
> enough A Bats to pummel an escort and the escort can't do squat in
return.>>>

<<<Well, that was very much the case when big guns rules supreme.  Big
guns shoot farther, they're generally more accurate and big ships
usually had better fire control (it was worth the cost).
Ship size wasn't a major factor. The hit/miss ratio of all naval guns
was abysmal. If the big boys had hard time hitting small fish, the small
fish had even harder time.
The limiting factor was the horizon. Aircraft and missiles could strike
targets over the horizon, guns couldn't. Thus the end of the big gun era
in warship design. >>>

Well I don't want to get into the big gun debate here. Big guns WHERE
less accurate if only because their volume of fire was lower.
<<<But there's no horizon in space. Technological advances *may* bring
big guns back.>>>

Certainly, especially if they are "ray guns." I prefer to stick with the
somewhat more modern example because I think it helps play balance. I
realize many don't agree and that's OK. We all like what we like.
<<<IMHO, it is the intention of FT to give big guns a chance again,
model perhaps not so realistic but very cool gigantic space battleships
slugging it out with big guns. I like it that way. Apparently you do
not.>>>

True. I like FLEET engagements. The current FT system in my opinion
relegates escort ships to 
mere afterthoughts. They play little significant role when there are a
few cap ships around. Also
 Cap ship fights are boring I think. They're big and slow and just get
in range and pound on each
 other. Let the biggets ship and/or best dice win. I think the smaller
ships and the FLEET fights are
 where the fun is, but again, that is just what I like.
<<<If you want to play "Harpoon in Space", just disallow all batteries
above C and stick as many missiles as you can in each boat. Sure, big
ships can still mount more of them (well, they're bigger), but they're
too easy targets for the points because of their low thrust. Thus no-one
wants a cap ship anymore, unless they have to use one, i.e. a carrier.
If you want to retain A's and B's as obsolete weapons, you could just
triple their cost and mass. But then nobody would want any and you could
just as well disallow them.
In FT A's and B's are NOT the weapons to use against cap ships, since
they generally suck against well-screened targets. If you make them
unusable against smaller ships, they become unusable, period.
This will also mean screens are less important, meaning more
non-screened ships, thus reflecting "modern reality" better.
You would need better EW rules though. And you'd have to stop "launch
all missiles and FTL out/turn tail" tactics somehow.
since hull costs are linear, I have a strange feeling a Mass 4/Thrust
8/One missile "bathtub launcher" would be the ideal design.
Oh, and disallow "C-batts as PDAFs" while you're at it.>>>

I don't see any need to be that drastic with rules changes nor do I see
any dramatic effect on play.
 by making the big guns a bit harder "to-hit" smaller ships with you
just give the little guys a bit 
longer life span in order to have a real effect on the final outcome of
a fleet battle. After all, escorts 
where designed to keep other escorts AWAY from Cap ships (as well as
other duties of course) 
so that big, fat, vulnerable Cap ship could tackle other big, fat,
vulnerable Cap ships and not get 
sunk by a ship that cost 1/3 as much. 

Paul
--
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly +358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an
ordinary pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
Http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |