Re: FB designs & fighters

On  3-May-02 at 16:04, Brian Bilderback (bbilderback@hotmail.com) wrote:
> Noam Izenberg Wrote:

> >Actually we want to make the rules better and more consistent without
> >invalidating current designs. Big difference.
> 
> If the current designs are valid within the context of facing other
current
>  designs, then no change seems necessary.  If the changes are intended
to 
> make the current designs more useful against more advanced/optimized 
> designs, then the changes skew the rules.
 
Actually, let me simplify to why your solution doesn't work.

Ignore fighters and non-base (no plasmas or wave guns) for the moment.

Design any ship you want using these systems.  Go ahead and min-max
if you want, I don't care.  the decent FB1 ships (ignore that D#$N
FSE BDN), if using similar masses, will give your ships a run for
their money if played by someone of equal or better tactics than
yours.	You may have a 10% or so advantage but that would only be
because you are designing ships to fit your tactics.

You can't say the same with massed fighters.  I could write a flow
chart for the fighters that could beat an FB1 fleet.  Since our
standard of comparison is ships from FB that tells me that for
extreme masses of fighters the point system is broken.	Either
the point system needs to be corrected so you can't afford to
do massed fighters or the rules need to be corrected so massed
fighters aren't unbalanced.

A wargame where trivial tactics are killer is a broken game.
A flow chart is trivial tactics.

Just for amusement, has anyone designed a soap bubble carrier
for the Kr'vak?  They would have the additional problem of
a broken morale system.