Re: FT---boom-and-zoom tactics

[agoodall@xxxxxxx]

Tony wrote:

> You could effectively create 'Fleet Scale' fleets by simply 
> redesignating the models as something larger - most of the Official 
> fleets are very similar in design style so just call an NSL destroyer a 
> Battleship - as long as it's the same for both sides, it shouldn't cause 
> a problem once you get used to it.

Actually, I'm in a very distinct minority in that I prefer cruiser actions in FT. I feel they are more interesting, tactically.

I know I'm in a minority in this considering all the posts about uber-dreadnoughts. There's something about the psyche of the (mostly male) FT player that thinks bigger is better. I actually _prefer_ games where many of the ships go "boom" pretty quickly. It means that you have to be better at conserving your resources, and you have to be a lot smarter about your order of fire in the combat phase.

(This is why I can't understand the popularity of simultaneous damage. It's not like FT has a lot of tactical complexity as it is, and when we add a weapon to increase that complexity -- such as the AMT -- some people criticize it. One of the few _important_ decision points is choosing which ship to fire and at what. Simulataneous damage eliminates most of this.)

My personal style is to play a faster paced game with smaller craft. I have used fighters, but they have been in the "Star Wars" mode of craft lifting from a planet, or I had designed small "fighter tenders" for convoy protection missions. In fact, convoy missions were my favourite (in spite of not having enough freighter models). When the fighter imbalance became really noticable, I stopped playing with fighters altogether.

--
Allan Goodall              agoodall@att.net
http://www.hyperbear.com   agoodall@hyperbear.com