Prev: Re: Thoughts on FT Next: Re: Paint Schemes for Full Thrust

Re: Missile Balance [for Jon]

From: Joachim Heck - SunSoft <jheck@E...>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:00:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Missile Balance [for Jon] writes:
@:) At 08:50 04/04/97 -0500, I wrote:
@:) >  I read that message but did not understand it.  If you were
@:) >suggesting that a single fighter should somehow turn into six,
@:) >that's obviously nonsensical.
@:) Sorry about the delay but in short [yes.]  I take it that
@:) ... carriers have more fighter groups in storage ... that can't be
@:) worked on in the bays due to the flights currently occuping the
@:) decks.  Once the lone fighter ... returns crews ... will be
@:) working in the bay getting [ more fighters ] flightworthy....  So
@:) in effect a carrier can only 'run' a set number of fighters but
@:) can replace losses back up to that set number.

  Hmmm... I don't know.  It certainly works with the FT simplicity
theme, but there are several problems.	For one, it extends the
capability of the carriers to a very large extent (bear in mind,
gentle readers, that this was proposed as an antidote to an increase
in effectiveness for *DAF) by giving them a nearly unlimited supply of
expendable fighters.  For two, it will cause problems in campaign
games since the extra fighters have to be accounted for and paid for -
how do you do this when you can generate infinite amounts of
fighters?  Keeping track of the number of extra fighters could work
but adds complexity again.  For three, this is pretty unrealistic.
Sure carriers carry parts around and it's not unimaginable that they
might carry an entire spare set of fighters but if they can press them
into service so quickly, one would imagine that they would just launch
the first set of fighters, then (now that the hangar is empty) ready
the second set of fighters and launch them.  Again we have the
infinite fighter problem.

@:) Hope this helps explain the message

  Yes, thank you.  But now that I understand your meaning, I am
thinking it brings in too many problems for the benefits it provides.
There are probably simpler ways of approaching the nasty fighters

@:) (I did write it in the small hours!)

  Oh is that it?  I thought it was in standard Welsh!  :)


Prev: Re: Thoughts on FT Next: Re: Paint Schemes for Full Thrust