Re: Re: FT: Carriers & Fighter Capacity

----- Original Message -----
From: <laserlight@quixnet.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:11 AM
Subject: RE: Re: FT: Carriers & Fighter Capacity

> From: Edward Lipsett translation@intercomltd.com
> >Are you saying the rules are broken, or just that being swarmed by
fighters
> is not good for ships without fighter defenses?

> FB1 ships get devoured by fighters, unless you bring almost all
Beijing-E
or
> something of that sort.  How would you fix it so:
> a) fighters are useful
> b) masses of fighters are not unbalancing
> c) FB1 ships are useful
> d) we do not have to change the published SSDs (ie you can tinker with
the
rules
> of what existing systems can do, but don't come with a new icon for
the
SSD).

These four goals, taken together, are not possible.  Period.  (c),
alone, is
possible only if you assume that every other ship used is also out of
FB1.
Pointing the finger at fighters in particular misses the point
spectacularly.	The designs themselves are simply _bad_.

If you want to hike the price of every weapon in the game that will beat
the
FB1 ship designs badly if they're used in bulk, it's not the slightest
bit
of exaggeration to say that the only thing you _won't_ have to hike will
be
beams and _maybe_ the spinal mounts.  The ship designs really are _that_
bad, as compared to what can be done with the same systems in FB1 and a
little custom design.

E