Re: Do you enforce Fleet "composition"

Tony Francis wrote:

> One method under pre-FB rules (when the distinction between capitals,
> cruisers and escorts was very clear-cut) was that a fleet should have
at
> least as many cruisers as capital ships, and at at least as many
escorts
> as cruisers. This is purely in terms of number of ships fielded rather
> than tonnage or points value.

That's the way we play it, although there was one guy who wanted to run
a campaign
who wanted us to use twice as many cruisers as cap ships, and twice as
many
escorts as cruisers, until we all informed him that we were *not* going
to spend
the money to expand our fleets just to play in his campaign :).  We
occassionally
limit or eliminate capital ships as well; games with smaller ships can
be a lot of
fun, and tend to go more quickly, although I think that in any game of
that type,
the Voroshilev Heavy Cruiser rules :)

> >
> > Tuesday night we played a 3000 vs 3000 pt game NAC/FSE vs Kra'Vak,
never
> > having played NAC before and wanting to try out the pulse torpedoes
I took
> > with my share of the "allied" points.
> >
> >  1 CH Vandenburg/T (2 PT)
> >  3 BB Vanguard (4 PT)
> >
> > Which is slightly less than 1500 pts but it felt right for a heavy
> > battleship squadron.
> >
> > Some of the non-playing persons that where present mumbled something
about
> > cheese, apparently they feelt that this wasnt "right"...

Hmm, I'd probably point out a couple of things to them:  First, they
were not
playing in the game, so why were they whining, and second, if the person
you
played against didn't care, what does it matter anyway?  Even though our
group
tends to play that way, there's no written rule for it anywhere, and
people ought
to remember that the point of playing the game is to have fun, not to be
"right".