Re: Well, too interesting to drop all of the posts in this thread...

Doug's example below is interesting.  Before anyone
assails the validity of allowing this type of strategy
based on it's strategic foolishness, let me point out
that the point is that the player should be ABLE to
create such a force, whether for grins or for
background flavor, regardless of the wisdom of the
strategy.

--- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:

> > Six?  Each side can be set at a different value? 
> Why would you do that?
> 
> May I suggest there are two discussions, though
> tightly related, going on?
> The two sides could have the same armor values, but
> would represent
> separate angles of attacks.
> 
> However, I can imagine situations, such as
> 'outriders', that may want one
> side more heavily protected. During the discussion
> of asymmetrical ships in
> FT, I came up with some fleet manuevers that
> depended on 'wing' ships
> having broadsides on one side stronger than the
> other. One flaw was there
> was no way to increase armor on one side over other
> directions, keeping
> cost down.
> 
> Note, these are less flexible ships, leaving the
> tactics more brittle, and
> that would certainly be the case, if not more so,
> for any such designed
> armor. The ships in question would have been a
> relatively small part of any
> fleet, and, like Super Jackhammer Carrier Tank, fire
> magnets. ;->=
> 
> As manuever in DSII is less tightly controlled than
> in FTII, the discussion
> becomes less significant, though.
> 
> The_Beast
> 
> 

=====
"In life, you must try and be the type of person that your dog thinks
you are."

- Anonymous

	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail