Re: FT - Large scale fleet engagements

The Beast wrote:

>Sorry, Oerjan. I tend to think of FB designs, not FB-legal designs,
and
>in cinematic only, when I'm making tactical/fleet comments.

Can sometimes be a bit misleading when the situation being debated
involves FB-legal designs (ie, not "official" FB designs) using Vector
movement <g>

>Even Really Big Tables (tm) or the use of centimeters is a bit foreign
to >the way I think of playing. Not wrong, of course, just not the way
I'm >thinking.

>I'll try to make those codicles with every FT comment in the future.
> 
>Otherwise, I thought most of the rest of what you said had already
been
>covered.

I know... I got some of the comments just after I sent my post :-/

>***
>They [BJs[ don't do nearly as well against a fleet combining missiles
>with decent secondary batteries sturdy enough hulls to survive a beam
>exchange of a turn or so before the missiles are launched... but such
a >fleet is a very far cry from the ships Adrian suggests :-)
> ***
> 
>Well, the more secondary batteries, the fewer the missles, too.

Exactly my point. A very far cry from the ships Adrian suggests :-)

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry