RE: Re: Fighters

At 2:48 PM -0400 5/7/02, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
>
>a) you can reduce the efficacy of PDS vs any single fighter (which 
>will help make small quantities of fighters *more* useful, which 
>they presently aren't)
>b) Assuming you fiddle with ADFC some, *every* ship will need to 
>have masses of PDS to be invulnerable.  If you put 20 mass of PDS on 
>a DD or CL, you're not going to have room for much else.

When did this become a thing of making a ship invulnerable to a 
weapon system? "Gosh, can I have level 10 screens so my ship ignores 
beams all together?"

Its about balance. When the exception jumps on the end of the 
spectrum and screws the balance, you're going to move the balance of 
the rule and not the exception?

What it really sounds like is that the Ship construction rules for 
Carriers needs to be revised.

No instant launches of all fighters. Carriers must have at least 
average hulls for the cats to function with a corresponding decrease 
of strength given a higher Delta V from the engines. Break out 
separate launching and recovery facilities for carriers from the 1.5 
mass of the fighter bay and points cost.

Fiddle with this more and your problem of soap bubble carriers washes
away.
-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill			     '01 Honda Insight -
- rmgill@SPAmindspring.com			    '85 CB700S -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com		 '76 Chevy Monte Carlo -
- www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       '72 Honda CB750 -
-				      '60 Daimler FV701H Mk2/3 -
-				   '42 Daimler Scout Car Mk II -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-    Smart ID cards in the US, Smart ID cards in Hong Kong,    -
-		      what is the difference?		       - 
----------------------------------------------------------------
-  C&R-FFL  /  Protect your electronic rights!	  \ EFF-ACLU   -
- SAF & NRA/  Join the EFF!  http://www.eff.org/   \ DoD #0780 -