RE: Fleet structure

Just a quick note to consider;
Our group really likes FT because you can really customize your ship
designs
to suit your individual preferences and tastes.

We've noticed that Fleet design evolves as the players become more
experienced at ship design and as knowledge of the ruleset increases.

Doctrine tends to follow players particular preferences with those
players
who prefer the missile chuckers vs the armored beamers vs the speed
demons
vs the swarm of fighters evolve their own force mix.

My own preference is for slightly slower armored capitals using pulse &
missiles with a slew of fast escorts (DD & CL's) with the occasional
CVL.

See Ya
Pat Connaughton

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of
laserlight@quixnet.net
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:36 AM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: Fleet structure

>From: staremu star_emu@hotmail.com
>I am trying to get a good handle on ratios and practices today which
could
be translated to Full Thrust.

A lot of people seem to start off that way, but the situation for an FT
fleet is different than that of a modern navy.	FT has no equivalent of
a
submarine, so there's no need for lots of little ASW platforms.  Think
more
along the lines of pre-WWI fleets, then add some point defence to deal
with
fighters and a few expendable "scout" ships to soak up salvo missiles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .