Re: Fighters

Allan Goodall wrote:

>They aren't flawed. The point system is flawed. Twenty fighter
squadrons 
>are
>far more effective combat wise than 20 times the cost of 1 squadron
would
>suggest. Twenty beams, on the other hand, are about as effective as the

>cost
>of 1 beam multiplied by 20.

OK, this I can accept as a reason to overhaul the system.  I merely want
to 
see it done because it's broken, not because one set of designs make it
look 
broken.  But the arguement that was being used was, "FB1 designs don't
work, 
so it must be the system."  Your arguement is much more compelling.

>You will still be able to fight carrier versus carrier games "as is".
The
>difference is that if someone in your group wants to walk in with a
fleet 
>of
>battleships and battlecruisers, he'll stand a chance. Right now, he 
>doesn't.

I'm not interested in carrier vs carrier or carrier vs battleship
battles 
only.  I'm interested in well-mixed fleets being able to take on all
comers. 
  If the game is skewed so that a fleet with both carriers AND ships of
the 
line STILL gets trounced by an all-carrier fleet, THEN I'd be interested
in 
how to fix it.	Unbalanced design fleets vs unbalanced in the other 
direction is a poor standard for judging.

>Unfortunately you can't always do this (a good example is "design your
own"
>tournaments). Right now, people are saying, "FT is broken. If you don't

>bring
>fighters to the game, you're toast."

And if you do bring fighters, AND other ships, and your opponent brings 
fighters and carriers only, are you still toast?  I'm just asking, I
don't 
know the answer.

>How about "design your own" tournaments? If you don't use fighters in a

>heavy
>way, you won't win. Why is that? Because the point system is broken. It
has 
>a
>flaw in it where by fighters become more and more efficient for the
points 
>the
>more of them you buy.

If that's really the case, then the points system is flawed, not fighter

mechanics in general.  I'm just wondering if ANY design massed in such a

matter wouldn't require you employ defenses specifically to react to
that 
threat....

>This is something that people are looking at. It would effectively make
>fighters less effective for the price. It could bring fighters back
down to
>where their cost is linear compared to their numbers.

Makes sense, I suppose, if you do want to limit fighters.  I also wonder
if 
you could offer different levels of PDS (Like DS does), for the same
mass 
but higher costs.

3B^2

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