Re: [GZG]shiproles [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

["John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/15/07, Ken Hall <khall39@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> These are good distinctions. Another way of thinking about ship roles is at
> a higher level of abstraction (ideally, the time to think about this is the
> time the ship is designed). What is it you intend to accomplish with your
> ship(s)?

Theoretically, one should write the doctrine, then allocate roles,
then build ships to fill those roles.  Theoretically.  I don't know of
very many historical or modern navies that actually do that.  Too many
real-world political and economic constraints.

> Keep that cloud of Nea Rhomaoi fighters ;-) you expect to face off your
> battleline's back?

Better our fighters from purpose-built carriers (that don't
unaccountably also try to impersonate heavy cruisers) than the 'soap
bubble' carriers that show up in games without a background. . .

Ioannis Damaskenos Atkinson
--
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l