Re: small carrier expense

On 31-Jan-02 at 22:35, Mark Reindl (mreindl@pacbell.net) wrote:
> 
> 
> > > >You're talking about expense a lot in the below message... take
that
> > > >thinking just a step or two further...
> > > >
> 
> I don't know if it's been addressed yet, but another advantage to
building
> small carriers is the amount of time it takes vs. a larger vessel. 
Also,
> loss of a smaller carrier isn't as crippling as a larger one would be,
> either in terms of combat strength or morale.  In addition, there are
some
> things that smaller carriers are just better for when you don't want
your
> big boys tied up doing things like convoy escort, etc.

I don't know about anywhere else but in FT my small carriers have
been a disaster.  They aren't big enough to take any fire but
attract attention out of all proportion to their size.	They are
also painful to replace.  With a bigger carrier you can jump
out if they get hurt, a small carrier just blows up.

By small carrier I'm assuming 2 squadrons.