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

--- Shawn M Mininger <smininger@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> If someone likes fighters, and uses them well, why
> create an artificial limit just because you got your
> butt waxed by them?...but don't create scenarios
specifically to
> punish someone who uses them.....that's stacking the
> deck.  
> 

Isn't it ok to create unusual scenarios with
different star terrain? Some will work for the
fighters (asteroids) and this particular one
would work against them. It's just one game,
maybe their next game will be asteroids and
they can arc effortlessly through the rocks
while the ships are crashing into them. I lost
a ship to the rocks just last week.
...

> Way back in history...there was a terrible weapon
> called the crossbow.	This one weapon changed the
> face
> of warfare.  Suddenly, a relatively untrained
> footman
> could take down the best Knight!!!!  Did everyone
> just
> start complaining and stomp thier feet and threaten
> to
> 'tell Mommy'? 

I bet they did actually. They probably railed at
it as underhanded, just like the submarine in WWI.
It's in the nature of people to complain (me anyway).

...
 I guarantee that it won't be long
> before
> the other teams develop tactics that make fighters
> much less potent.
> 
In real life, yes. In a game? Depends on how flexible
the game is. Options can be more limited than in real
life.

In your example, you list as the crossbow as a 
countermeasure against the mounted knight. If you
were playing a middle ages wargame that didn't
include the crossbow, you wouldn't be able to use
that particular tactic. In real life the participants
might develop any number of new weapon systems to
deal with large masses of fighters, but unless those
new weapons are available in the game, they won't
happen. 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.