Re: Another tack on fighters

Indy wrote:

>If I may make one little point (not having my books here with me ;-),
>I believe J Tuffley did state that the FB1 designs were NOT optimal.
>I'm pretty sure he did say that in the FB1 book (alas, as I mentioned,
>I don't have my books here to double-check). I believe he alluded to
>the idea (or may have actually said it at some point, not sure) that
>the designs as presented were representative of general use campaign-
>type ships, not min-maxed most efficient designs for extended campaign
>play (now I may have read this last bit into what he was saying, so it
>could all be moot, anyway ;-)
>
>This was just to address the interpretation that "FB1 designs
>are supposed t obe ... well-designed", not most of the rest of
>the post, or thread.  ;-)   In one-off games against other FB1
>designs in the book, the ships work pretty okay. As soon as you
>throw in something min-maxed or made way more efficient, the FB1
>designs pale.

All good points, I agree.  I was not espousing the idea that the designs
are 
optimal, I was merely assenting to it for sake of the arguement.

3B^2

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: