Prev: Re: [GZG] Balanced Fleet Design Next: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 31

Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:53:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24

Eric Foley wrote on 09/29/2010 06:52:26 PM:

> Well, most of the most catastrophic capital ship sinkings in both
> World Wars on both sides occurred due to magazine explosions.  For
> the Allied side, you can look at several different British
> battlecruisers as well as the Arizona at Pearl Harbor.

For carriers as well, but usually uncontrolled fires that cooked off the

> But part of the idea is to make a lot of different elements of min-
> maxing riskier.  Well armored carriers are kind of a bad idea under
> the current design rules, because lighter ones (whether or not
> they're also faster) can throw quite a few more fighters for the
> same ship costs, and it's a scale that gets kind of ugly well before
> you actually go outright soapie.


I know of a number of writers that say that is exactly the point; Brit
carriers were lauded as very survivable, but lacked enough punch to make
difference save when chasing small fry or getting lucky, say, steerage,

I know, repeat after me, Taranto...

>	There's a whole range of different tactical behaviors that
> make the game less interesting and cut off whole avenues of play
> that this kind of thing would open up, IMO.

Okay, that's the ultimate argument, and trying to follow any prior tech
closely is madness. However, I'm slightly concerned that it'll be a
balance not to have it tip in the other direction at different points of
the scale. Not an argument, merely a gut reaction.


Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] Balanced Fleet Design Next: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 31