Re: [?] Tournament Fleet Composition

You wrote: 

>	It's not that my group (who has dropped FT for a while to play
in 
a >Flintloque campaign) field a couple of Intergalactic 

Now, there is nothing wrong with Flintloque.  I play Flintloque.  Fun 
game, but best played slightly intoxicated, and not to be taken 
seriously.

>complaining."	(Favorite story:  One numbskull got the idea to mount 
50 >Kra'Vak scatterpacks on his ship.)

We've discussed various ways to 'balance[1]' Kra'Vak ships in our 
group.	The current prevailing opinion is to make scatterpacks do 1 
point of damage, end of discussion.  Plus rail guns do their size 
class, never double.  I'm not real fond of these ideas, but. . . 

>	In their humble opinion, traditional fleet composition makes FT
a 
"wet >navy game in space rather than a space game."  They lambaste 

I don't suppose any of them have read any David Weber?	He's more or 
less the only SF spacefleet author worth reading, AFAIK.  Escorts play 
a biiiig role in his universes.  Except Mutineer's Moon, where nothing 
but really fast uberships run around.  Oh, well.  

escorts as
>"popcorn ships."  They believe that our concept of fleet tactics makes
>FT "too British."  (Yes, these are actual quotes.)

Too British?  Since when did the Brits invent small ships?  I thought 
the British were the ones who invented Dreadnoughts.

>	When I playtested FTIII with them, they were NOT amused with the
>construction rules for the following reasons:

FTIII??  What?	Where?

John M. Atkinson

[1]I've never actually played with Kra'Vak ships on the field yet, so 
all I know is what these guys think of it.  And my opinion of their 
opinion is slipping fast.