Re: (FT) small vs large ships, was YAFS

> From: "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com>
>
> The problem of that idea is munchkinism - for instance if 200 points
of ships can defeat 150 points of ships most of the time, the side
that has 30, ten point ships will almost always defeat the the fleet
with 2, 150 point ships, by simply generating a temporary imbalance on
the board (sending 10 one after one ship and twenty after the other).
Based on current rules, the two 150 point ships won't have more than
one or two firecontrols and will only be able to kill 2 or 4 smaller
ships per turn.
>
> You would have to remove the fire control limitation to further
balance points.
>
> Right now I see the balance being that smaller ships need to be
equipped with weapons that give a lot of bang for the mass, even if
they are short ranged (needle beams, torpedoes, scatterguns), while
larger ships can afford big, long range weapons and will try to
stand-off smaller ships.
>
> The balance is similar to the difference seen between brown and blue
navies.
>
> - --Binhan

I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'd bet on the 2 x 150 mass
ships.	They have more than 2 fire controls each (don't have FB books
here, but don't they average about 3-4 at this mass; and my designs
tend to have 4-5).  With 4 FCs each there are going to be 8 of the 10m
ships dead before they fired their weapon (like a beam-2).  That
leaves 22 and they will probably get a threshold on a m150 ship (say,
average hull + armor/shield); and that's if they all fire on the same
target.

Small ships do need to have some punch.  The Kra'vak MKP weapon is
pretty potent, but being a one-shot weapon it has really limited
usefulness.  Now why don't fighters have these?  Hmm, could that be a
Kar'vak torpedo fighter? hmmm, never thought of that... anyway...

Glen