RE: Re: Fighters [warning bloody rant]

At 7:56 PM -0700 5/7/02, Brian Burger wrote:
>
>The Soap Bubbles are parked about an inch in from the back edge of the
>blasted table; you start somewhere near the other edge of the table.
SBs
>barf insane amounts of fighters at you, which come hammering in at full
>move (24"); they meet your squadron/ship/fleet somewhere in the middle
of
>the table, and do that locust thing before you're even within B4 range
of
>their carriers, never mind more conventional sized weapons ranges!

My bloody point is that if you make such changes to the fighter rules 
then the bloody existing carriers (NON SOAP BUBBLE CARRIERS) will not 
be worth a fetid pair of dingos' kidneys! If 6 fighter groups from an 
Ark Royal can't go toe to toe with one SDN that masses as much as the 
Ark Royal, then what is the bloody point of even having the Ark Royal 
and the Illustrious in the blasted book? Are they there for 
nostalgia? If two Ark Royals can't stand off from one SDN and rip it 
apart like two SDNS could one SDN then I'd have a problem as well.

If Soap Bubbles are the problem ban the bloody soap. Don't ban the 
bloody water and air as well. Ban the bloody soap bubbles.

If people try to run a realistic carrier group the current rules make 
it hard enough. If you try to mix the force of fighters on board it's 
even harder. Why the heck are custom soap bubble carriers a problem 
against standard book ships? If I have 20 squadrons of fighters on 
the table, then I've got 20 squadrons worth of support ships to carry 
those fighters around. Those ships aren't going to be getting close 
to that battle line when all they have is a DD level armament. They 
bloody well cost a heck of a lot more than a DD. They cost as much as 
an SDN. And while they're sitting back waiting for their fighters to 
come back, those fighters are getting nibbled away under the standard 
rules.

The best counter for Fighters is Fighters. You can place them where 
you need to. You can intercept the fighters before they get into PDS 
range (Interceptors intercept...imagine that?).

>It makes for the most boring, irritating games of FT it's possible to
>play. My favourite games have always had either minimal fighters (10 or
>less squadrons) or none of the damn things at all. That allows for
actual
>maneuver, tactics, and things like that. (Imagine - a game where space
>devoted to Thrust isn't "wasted"!)

I've never ever said that soap bubbles aren't annoying. I've 
criticized the mouth breathing, odor trailing, munchkin tactic from 
the start. The closest I've ever come to the tactic was a desire for 
an Ark Royal that didn't waste mass on class 2s and 1s that wouldn't 
ever get used if it's escorts and it's captain were doing their job.
-- 
--
Ryan Gill			  rmgill@mindspring.com
	|	 |
	| O--=-  |	       |	   |
	|_/|o|_\_|	       | _________ |
	/ 00DA61 \	       |/---------\| 
     _w/^=_[__]_= \w_	       // [_]  o[]\\ 
    |: O(4) ==	  O :|	      _Oo\=======/_O_
    |---\________/---|	      [__O_______W__]  
     |~|\	 /|~|	      |~|/BSV 575\|~|
     |~|=\______/=|~|	      |~|=|_____|=|~|
     |~|	  |~|	      |~|	  |~|
    1960 Daimler Ferret     1942 Daimler Dingo