Re: [FT]SML question

On 16-Jun-01 at 01:52, Bif Smith (bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us>
> To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [FT]SML question
> 
> 
> > On 15-Jun-01 at 01:49, Bif Smith (bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:
> > > A quick question regarding SML`s. I want to use a SML with limited
arcs
> (or
> > > more limited than present), and was wondering if mass 2 for a 2
arc
> > > lancher, and mass 1 for a 1 arc launcher sounds reasonable? (at
normal
> x3
> > > cost).
> > >
> > > Also, in a campain, how would you people work the building rule to
> prevent
> > > pure fighter forces (ie-fighters used as offence, with the
carriers
> > > withdrawing and picking up new fighters at cheaper cost than a
> starship?),
> > > or using "stingboats/LAC`s" with FTL tugs (which for the same mass
are
> > > cheaper than a normal FTL warship, if the tug withdraws/is
reuseable?).
> >
> > With the fighters we just rule that they are so short range that if
> > the carrier withdraws the fighters surrender.  Of course we are
> > playing human-human and assume reasonable prisoner exchange.
> >
> > As for the LAC's, let the chips fall where they may.  We do roll a
> > chance for an intercept of the tug though. :)
> >
> > Roger
> >
> If you roll for intercepting the tugs, the chance must be small. After
all,
> a solar system is a big place. My tactics would be jump in far
outsystem
> (eg, 3 days travel), drop off the sting boats, and have them
accelerate in
> system while the tug jumps outsystem.

You are confused, reality is nice but a balanced game is ultimately
all that is important.	If we wanted all combat s hips to be
battle riders we would do it the way you suggest.  We don't.