Re: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

 Amalgating a few similar responses into one:

Roger Burton West:
>The problem is that under the current rules fighters have a non-linear
>effectiveness because they can swarm an enemy (who will eventually run
>out of PDS). So having eight fighter groups that move as a single unit
>is worth a lot more than eight times one fighter group.

 Salvo missiles seem to have much the same characteristics,
 although presumably if I search the archive I'll find grumbles
 about them too? I was thinking more that right now a fighter
 is costed (points) as a Class 1 beam, but regarded as being
 more effective.

 Isn't a certain amount of non-linearity unavoidable, or even
 to be expected? One big ship seems to beat up two or more
 smaller ships, even if the points values are nominally the
 same.

Steve Pugh wrote
>How fighter heavy? Just FB fighter heavy or really fighter heavy?

 Standard FB1 (and FB2, but only one Savasku showed) fleets, 1800
 /3000 pt fleets, I had six to eight groups. (Plus a couple of
 actions with smaller capital-free fleets.) No doubt I could have
 used more effective tactics, but they weren't any kind of wonder
 weapon at these fleet sizes.

>None of the FB fleets have enough fighters to really demonstrate what
>they can do in large numbers. The NAC carriers could easily trade
>B2s, shields, armour and maybe thrust for more fighter groups. Keep
>the carriers well away from the fire fight and they don't need any of
>that stuff.

 I was thinking just that myself...although not going for the soap
 bubble approach, the NAC could build 'American' rather than 'British'
 carriers that were only protected to battleship levels. Well, I'm
 already using Babylon 5 Earthforce Omega miniatures...

	Hugh