RE: Fighters in space

> The issue is that sea combat does not really map itself to space
combat.
> 
> In sea warfare, aircraft has a huge speed and range bonus to shps,
because
> aircraft propell themselves through air, not water. If aircaft had to
push
> themselves through water, they would be easier to intercept, have the
same
> limitation as ships (ie less turning capacity, speed limitation due to
> friction
> et al).
> 
> Darryl
> 
	[Binhan Lin]  
	But then again, FT is based on a generic system that allows you
to
play all those backgrounds - SW, BG, Anime - which are basically sea
battles
in space.  The true advantage of ships over fighters, which in most
games is
not represented, is that ships can remain on station for weeks, months
or
years.	Fighters are limited in endurance, which makes them less useful
in
patrolling the distant parts of the empire.  

	Using a pure wet navy example, many smaller nations have
brown-water
navies - patrol boats, hydrofoils etc, that are smaller, cheaper and
faster
and carry similar type weapons as most blue water navy vessels.  Why
doesn't
the US have a gigantic fleet of hydrofoils/hovercraft armed to the teeth
with Harpoon missiles?	Because these vessels are ineffective in
projecting
your power past your coastal waters.  To carry the war to the enemy, you
need the big ships with endurance.  Yes, a little skimpy PT armed with a
Harpoon can disable or even sink a destroyer, and perhaps a dozen might
damage a carrier at and miniscule fraction of the cost [Binhan Lin]  
but
unless the enemy is willing to sail into your backyard, you are totally
impotent.

	Space fighters have made the sacrifice of endurance for weapons
-
much like the same trade-off you'd get by making your ships non-FTL or
with
fragile hulls; a sacrifice in one area to enhance another.

	--Binhan Lin