RE:

>A couple of points - I listed one example since you asked how many big
guns 
>vs. fighters lost, I did not make it the "only" possible example and I
made 
>it as clean as possible (one or two large ships) so that an effective 
>comparison could be made.  The point of the example was to show the
idea of 
>how to cripple a fleet with an equal number of points of fighters.

And my reply was to show that with a little planning, you can come up
with 
an answer that does not require equal numbers of fighters.

>Your counter-example was a perfect example of what people dislike about

>fighters - unless you build completely anti-fighter, you will get
reamed.

Any time your opponent chooses a cheesy fleet, you're going to have to 
respond to the cheese or get worked.

The 2000 point fleet you described, if taken to a tournament would have
it's 
head handed to it by beam or torp heavy fleets. Whereas, the 2000 point 
fighter fleet is going to kill anything but a totally anti-fighter
fleet.	
In a single elimination tournament, you can guess which would probably 
advance further.

Which is why I don't like tournament formats.  I'm a campaign an.  I do
see 
your point, and I would admit that in such a format the Soapbubble can
be a 
problem.  I never claimed that this idea was the end-all solution to the

problem, I just suggested that it did help a great deal.

>In your description, you note that best case, for the fighters, only 6 
>groups would be taken down by ADFC,PDS and Beam 1. You forget to
include 
>the fact that PDS and beam 1 can only attack fighters attacking that
ship. 
>This means your 2-3 ADFC might take out 1 group, not 6.   The only real

>threats to my fighters are the ADFC and the interceptors.  Assuming
that 
>only 18 squadron made it through, 6 squadrons will cripple the CVE and
6 
>for each of the light cruisers (about 21 points of damage on each). 
The 
>escorts are impotent unless they are all equipped with ADFC.

>Assuming your idea of a single anti-ship attack,

If you're not assuming that, there's no point to this thread, since
that's 
what I thought you were addressing.

*snip* (Damned insert key).

>Loss of one CVE, two light cruisers - 600 NPV plus interceptor losses.

>Note that the interceptors caused most of the casualties, not the PDS. 

>Which means most fleets will be forced to have a carrier with
interceptors 
>of some sort.

True,

This is a big minus in tournament games since interceptors have no
anti-ship 
capability and are wasted if the opponent has no fighters.

And perhaps for tournaments this solution will not work, or at least
will 
need more help.  That doesn't invalidate it as a way of changing the
flavor 
of fighters in general.

 >The point here is that it takes fighters (interceptors) to defeat 
fighters, not ADFC/PDS/Beam 1.	The one of the points that people are
making 
is that they want a viable SHIP defense against fighters, and not have
to be 
forced to mount large fighter forces every time they play.

Point taken.  Which is why I've since suggested the minor modification
that 
PDS be allowed to attack any fighter passing within a certain range, say
6".

3B^2

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