Re: Fighters

"Z. Lakel" wrote:
> 
> The one concensus (well, sort of) that we seem to have achieved
concerning
> this issue is that fighters are far more useful in large groups than
they
> are in small ones.  Also, wouldn't it be easier to manipulate the
point
> system, which is an artificial construct anyways, rather than change
the
> rules per say?  Therefore, I'd suggest as an optional rule that
fighters be
> priced exponentially rather than linerly.  In other words, under the
current
> system, each fighter group costs X, so having four fighter groups
costs 4*X
> and having 20 costs 20*X.  What I am proposing is that the first
fighter
> group cost K, the second cost K+1, the third K+2 and so on.  This
would mean
> that, asuming K was set lower than X, having small numbers of fighters
would
> cost less than the current system, but having large numbers would cost
more.
> The actual number added to K would have to be determined, the one and
two I
> used were just for explanitory purposes.  Finally, I to stress that
this is
> proposed as an optional correction, if it doesn't fit your backgrond,
don't
> use it.

That's funny that you proposed this idea now. I was thinking about
this very thing in the shower this morning.