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

Shawn M Mininger wrote:

> >Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> >
> >I'm thinking next year to have the battle take place
> >within a red supergiant (Mote in Gods Eye) or some
> >other fighter-hostile environment.
>
> I always get a kick out of this type of thinking.
>
> I really try not to enforce artificial styles of play.
>
>
> If someone likes fighters, and uses them well, why
> create an artificial limit just because you got your
> butt waxed by them?
>
> We can argue that fighters aren't fair, that they're
> too powerful, or not powerful enough.  The fact is
> that they are part of the game.  If you don't like
> them, change your house rules (which I think is
> cheesey) but don't create scenarios specifically to
> punish someone who uses them.....that's stacking the
> deck.

They are only punished if they are not told ahead of time about the
scenario special rules.  It is not stacking the deck because it affects
all players equally.

>
>
> In most cases, as long as the rules are followed,
> thses things tend to work themselves out.  Usually
> what happens is that for a few games, a new tactic
> (fighters swarms, missile swarms, etc.) will totally
> catch an opponent off gaurd.	then the opponent will
> come up with a strategy to compensate.  This is the
> history of war!!!!!
>
> 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'?  Nope, heh heh heh the technology and
> tactics of warfare changed to accommodate this new
> developement.

As a matter of fact, they did.	The Catholic church (back when being
excommunicated actually meant something) banned the use of the crossbow
in warfare between christian states (hunting was still allowed).  After
that, the crossbow was mostly used as a weapon of war in the Crusades
against the moslem's.

While a crossbow could be competently (if not expertly) used after a few
days training, it was neither cheap enough to buy, nor easy enough to
make for just any peasant to own one, so they never seriously threatened
to blunt a heavy cavalry charge.  The mounted knight was doomed by the
pike square (which evolved into the infantry square after the
introduction of firearms).

>
>
> Instead of creating an environment that artificially
> punishes someone who uses a style of play that is
> diffenet, I would rather encourage you to let it take
> it's course.	I guarantee that it won't be long before
> the other teams develop tactics that make fighters
> much less potent.

Unless you are using the Kra'Vak, you need as many fighters as the other
guy, or so many PDS escorts, that you are penalized if your opponent
decides not to use fighters (Kra'Vak can mount two or three scatterguns
per squadron for the worst case carrier group, and still have an
effective amount of anti-ship weaponry).  So it is not that the player
who uses fighters is being different, he is forcing everyone to play his
style of game, which is just as unfair as limiting the effectiveness of