Re: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@hyperbear.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 23:26:12 -0800, "Eric Foley"
<stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> >But the simple statement, "Fighters' strength scales non-linearly" is
not
> >true -- it's the gap over the enemy's defenses that scales
non-linearly
in
> >value, and that gap scales in _both_ directions.

> Sorry, you're wrong. The point value of 20 fighter squadrons is less
20 x
the
> point value of 1 fighter squadron. The effectiveness of 20 squadrons
is
> greater than 20 x the effectiveness of 1 squadron. This has been shown
several
> times on the list. The simple statement that "fighter strength scales
> non-linearly" is true.

If you've got twenty fighter squadrons and your opponent has the
defensive
firepower to shred them all, their effectiveness not only isn't
non-linearly
greater than 20 x the effectiveness of 1, but its net effectiveness is
actually *less* than just carrying 1 in that situation, because the
fleet
that only brings 1 fighter will have the mass that *didn't* go into the
other 19 squadrons going into other weapons.  The fleet with _fewer_
fighters is _more_ effective in that case.

On the other hand, if the enemy can't stop fighters worth a damn, then
you're right.... the 20 is worth non-linearly more than 20x the worth of
just 1.  In that situation, and in that situation only.

Which, incidentally, is exactly what I said:  their effectiveness scales
non-linearly with the _gap_ in the number of fighters as opposed to the
amount of defenses mounted against them, and as I said, it scales in
both
directions.  If your opponent can stop any number of fighters that you
can
carry, you're better off _not_ carrying them -- i.e. the more fighters
you've got, the _worse_ off you are.

And frankly, I don't really care how many times it's been "shown"
otherwise
on the list.  If I've got a 1000 point fleet that has the scatterguns to
kill off a soap bubble carrier's entire complement of fighters, my enemy
is
better off carrying _zero_ fighters.

E
(aka Stilt Man)