Rant Warning below Re: UNSC beta and FB3

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:54:56 +0100 KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
(K.H.Ranitzsch) writes:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jared Hilal" <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
>
>>  It would have been nice if we could get away from the
>> "two largest capital ships have a couple of fighter groups no matter
>> the background blurb"
>> and the "collection of ships rather than a coordinated fleet" 
>syndromes
>which
>> aflict all human, KV and Phaln ship designs.
>
>What, to your mind, is the difference between a "coordinated fleet" 
>and a
>"collection of ships" ? How would this be reflected in the set of ship
>designs ? Could you sketch a "coordinated" UN fleet ?
>
>Greetings
>Karl Heinz
>

Actually I'd like to see this too.

Let's see what you can produce Jared....  a 'coordinated fleet' and the
rationale behind what you decide that reflects that 'coordinated'
aspect,
please.

Change of subjects:

RANT WARNING!!

IMDNSHO, The One Thing that I find in FT (otherwise a  fine and
excellent
generic spaceship battle game for small to medium fleets/task forces) in
the 'fact' that it plays out as a WW1/early PTO WW2 naval game without
fighters and as a WW2/Modern  naval game with fighters.  Hence the
"..capital ships have a couple of fighter groups.." thing.  It fits that
model well.  But the model seems...  'wrong' to me.

I think all of you know that the 'space navy' aspect is one of the
assumptions I personally question as 'best' much less 'most likely'
possible future but then I was 'tainted' while in the USAF in my mid to
late 20's.  

The whole 'naval class names' thing really rankles each time I think
about it.  YMMV, and for most of you it does.  Which is fine.  I just
don't like it very much.  A minor quibble at best.  Except to me.

Gracias, 
Glenn

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!