Re: Soap bubbles?

----- Original Message -----
:From: "Mike Hillsgrove" <mikeah@cablespeed.com>
> > But I understood that  the fighters , by attacking the opposition,
> > effectively protect the carriers, so that they rarely are engaged ?
If
> > that is a successful tactic and soap bubbles rarely get hit, it
would
seem to
> > me an acceptable tactic even in "real" life.
>
> I'm not joining your navy.  I would assume that the enemy has fighters
as
> well, or that space has other dangers that might test the structural
> integrity of the ship.  Even an accident with your own fighters,
perhaps a
> damaged fighter trying to land.

Hmmm....
Full Thrust lacks even a defined time and distance scale, and there is
no
definition of structural integrity levels that relates to 'real life'
either. IIRC, FT freighters are classed as 'fragile' in FT. IMO, a
fragile
hull is designed to survive normal wear and tear and minor accidents -
think
of a tanker in present-day merchant navies.

The tactical question is not; is a soap bubble carrier unsafe when hit -
we
all agree it is not safe. The question is: In a fleet action, is it
safer to
be in an SBC or a conventional vessel ? From what I hear about present
FT
rules, a conventional vessel is less safe :-/

Unless, that is, the SBC regularly gets slaughtered while its fighters
decimate the opposition - my original .question, which nobody has
answered,
so far.

BTW: what happens if two fleets of SBC meet ?

Greetings
Karl Heinz