Re: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

> 
> ***
> In another post, Grant wrote:
> 
>  >>>Okay...now you take as many 1 hull, firecon, t-4,  Beam-4
>  >>>ships as you can fit in those 6000 points.  Don't have the books
handy
>  >>>but it's got to be over 100.
>  >>
>  >>I get 93 points/ea if you include FTL, so about 64 ships for
>  >>6000pts. I've played games like that, and had it be rather more
even 
> than the
>  >>massed-fighters deal.  OTOH, if you make it Beam 4 and Thrust 8,
that
>  >>gets ugly.
>  >
>  >How about making them 3 x beam 1, thrust 6 and 1 point of
>  >armor?
> 
> Have you actually played such battles? I have, and so has Laserlight. 
> Assuming that you use the CPV system rather than the NPV one, in my 
> experience this usually gives a pretty even fight where tactics decide
the day.
>
    That's no minor assumption.  We use NPV because that's all that has
been
  published, so that's all the guys will go for.  :-)

 
> 
> In a 6000-pt battle I doubt that a mere 53 SM salvoes will suffice to
*hit* 
> every 
> All in all, while the Full Thrust points system certainly has
problems, in 
> my experience the swarm of small short-ranged strikeboats is not one
of them.
> 
    Well, I wasn't actually trying to argue that they were all-powerful.
 A lot
  does depend on the styles of the people you play with, and I would
feel 
  pretty confident with such a force against the ships my current group
likes
  to use.  There are certainly counters to such a tactic, but of course,
there
  are counters to the massed fighters too (just not as many).  :-)
    Personally, I prefer to force a more "realistic" force structure.  I
think
  it gives a better game.  The biggest "real world" objection to an all
strike
  boat force is that most forces wouldn't be able to recruit enough
suicidal
  fools to man such a fleet.

   grant