Re: [FT] (LONG) The Balance of Power -- Fighters and a Defense

"Izenberg, Noam" wrote:

> > My problem is that I don't particularly like the
> > carrier battle. I'm a WWI battleline man at heart
> > (which FT is very good at by the way), but I can't
> > design ships like that because they get chewed by
> > by fighters.
>
> If that's the feel you want, force fighters to be weaker/more
expensive in
> your house rules. Or make PDS more effective. That'll change the
balance of
> your games and make fighters virtually disappear as elements. Weren't
> fighters much less of a threat to ships in WWI?

Except that aircraft had a greater line of sight, and some of them even
had
radios, they were no threat at all.  It took a while for
heavier-than-air craft
to carry a heavy enough payload damage, let alone sink, a warship.  As
reconnaissance platforms, they were sufficiently promising for the Royal
Navy
to spend a lot of money in R&D during WWI.  The fighter was developed to
prevent enemy aircraft from reconnoitering your forces.

>
>
> >I think it's a reasonable
> >thing to wish for a anti-fighter missile system
> >like the Standard in use in the fleet.
>
> Its certainly reasonable to ask if you don't mind changing the balance
of
> the game. If you want FT to play more WWI-ish, then changing the
balance is
> probably what you want to do. FT is designed to accomodate that.

FT, as written, is a fair approximation of aircraft in WWII (or would be
if
class-2 beams could hit on a 6 to accompany the class-1 hit on a 5 or 6,