Re: [?] Tournament Fleet Composition

You wrote: 

>Good for tournaments, really bad for campaigns or scenarios that are 
supposed >to reflect RL.  (As much as Sci-Fi can reflect RL.  (8-) )

Now, now.  BTW, what is disadvantage in campaign games?

>Modern wet-navies given a costal defence mission.  Try crossing the 

Well, I figure that there have to be system defense elements of any 
space fleet.  And these seem ideal.

>that usually tips the weight against them as
>the mother ship is so expensive, a balanced fleet would be better.  

The scary part about this is that the guy who runs this group of 
abusive gits I play with has introduced some slight modifications of 
the rules.  Like allowing any ship to become a tug.  I intend to point 
out that this makes the cost-effectiveness factor of 6-ton STL ships 
with 2 missles each and a superheavy cruiser as a mother ship rather 
loony.	So we'd be doing Traveller, where Battleriders dominate space 
warfare.  If that's how he wants to run his universe.  Of course, he 
also made Privateers illegal--no A batteries on smaller-than-30-ton 
ships.	Wierd idea, IMHO (Sorry folks, but the WWII 16" gun on a tin 
can analogy does not hold up!).  Which skews things in favor of capital 
ships even more than they already are.

>In FT, area weapons like the Wave Gun or Nova Cannon would be good 
counters.

Speaking of goofy and abusive weapons. . . 

>Loading your ships with PD would help.  Fighters.  Banzai Jamming (if
>your universe supports it.)   There's only so much you can do because 

Banzai Jamming?

John M. Atkinson