Re: FB2... hmmmm...

> On  7-Jun-00 at 13:14, stiltman@teleport.com (stiltman@teleport.com)
wrote:
> > I won't need too many little escorts, and they won't necessarily
even be
> > little.  They'll either be little and capable of cloaking, or
cruiser to
> > battlecruiser sized and fast and stout.  
 
> Just out of curiousity, what cloaking rules are you using?  I've
always
> considered cloaking useless versus high thrust ships as plotting
orders
> to get you ship in the right place assumes you know where your
opponents
> will be in X turns.  It's often difficult to tell where your opponents
> are going to be after this turns movement if they are "fast".

That's quite true.  We just don't have a terrible number of fast ships
for
various reasons.  Fast ships have to trade off enough in either armament
or resilience, and spinning takes away so much of the advantage of
maneuverability, that we don't tend to put very powerful drives on the
bulk of our ships.  Those ships that have strong drives are usually
intended
as quick-strike weapons that we don't expect to keep.
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 The Stilt Man		      stiltman@teleport.com
   http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
   < We are Microsoft Borg '98.  Lower your expectations and	>
   < surrender your money.  Antitrust law is irrelevant.	>
   < Competition is irrelevant.  We will add your financial and >
   < technological distinctiveness to our own.	Your software	>
   < will adapt to service ours.  Resistance is futile. 	>