Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: Mixed Role Fighters (design system)

I had a post a few months back that summarized all the arguments that
multirole fighters were MORE or LESS than the sum of their parts. I
can dig it out if you'd like, because I think it addresses your point.
Besides, since you pay for the carrier that the fighters are deployed
from, and since that cost is typically far more than the fighters
themselves, multiroles are actually not nearly as expensive as they
appear. It's just that more of those points go into teeth than tail
with supermultiroles.

Finally, there's the argument that we already have multi-role
fighters: they're called "fighters". I still don't see how confounding
specializations with tech level helps us.

My feeling is that fighters, missiles, area defense and command and
control (not currently in FT at all) are fleet-level assets that add
increasing marginal effectiveness rather than linear, ship-level
components. (I also think that many ship-level components we currently
pay for actually aren't adding effectiveness to the ship or the
fleet.)

Rob

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Roger Burton West<roger@firedrake.org>
wrote:
>
> Actually, the multirole attacker-interceptors seem to be costed about
> right - they can only choose role once per turn, after all. Do you
> really expect them to beat more than twice their number in standard
> fighters?
>
> I agree that carrying a lot of fighters and missiles is overpowered
> under the current rules, but I don't think there's a lot of contention
> about that, and it seems only fair to warn people!
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l