Re: General EMP Thoughts

>  >Of course large ships are more powerful - and they have the
>>point cost to prove it.
>
>Incorrect. Large ships are more powerful, but their points cost does
>not reflect their privilige of taking fewer threshold checks than
>smaller ships - and that is a quite big advantage indeed.

Both small AND large ships take 4 thresholds (though in select cases, 
the small ship may take 2, 1, or none). I think what you meant to say 
was that the larger ships have to take more damage before taking 
their first. True. However, even though the same percentage of 
systems will break in both cases, more systems will go down on the 
larger vessels. In other words, the same percentage of MASS will go 
down in both cases.

>Given the same thrust ratings and equipment mixes on both sides, a
>single ship is invariably more powerful than the sum of two smaller
>ships with the same total NPV due to the fact that the small ships take
>thresholds and lose weapons earlier even if they taken together have
>the same total numbers of hull and armour boxes.

Assuming that same weapons mix and damage potential in both cases 
(statistically speaking), it balances out. If we have a 40 HP big 
ship vs. 2 x 20 HP smaller ships, each doing an average 1 point of 
damage per 4 HP (10, 5, 5), they will all die gloriously together. 
Even though the smaller ships make more frequent threshold checks, 
the big ship must either split his fire or concentrate on 1. Let's 
say that he concentrates, and at the end of turn 2, he has 20 HP left 
(2nd threshold) and there is one destroyed and 1 untouched 20 HP 
ship. The overall damage potential is still the same.

>  >We can save the Supership vs. Mixed Fleet debate for another time.

See above. While I don't deny that FB1 escorts would loose against a 
larger ship of equal thrust, FB1 large ships have lower thrusts, and 
FB1 escorts are mostly hampered by their lack of long-ranged weapons.

>Sounds like you've only looked at those lists without actually trying
>them out in a game, or else haven't read Noam's and Beth's comments to
>them. One of your conditions was to nail things down hard enough to
>leave no room for arguments, but short lists leave a lot of room for
>arguments.

I would have to disagree here. (and I have read the posts, thanks ;-)

Take (as stipulated in one of my replies):

1) Drives
2) Electronics
3) Weapons
4) Fire Control

Within each category go from lowest MASS to highest MASS (or vice 
versa, it doesn't matter for the purpose of my example).

That's a short list, and it really doesn't leave alot of room for
argument.

However, if you mean that the list itself is open to argument (in 
other words, you think that Weapons should be the first thing 
tested), then we can dance about all day.