Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters

The question I see raised by all of this is whether we intend to raise
the effectiveness of fighters relative to other ships' improvements.
Ideally, we want things set up so that points-balanced fleets can
engage one another and have the battle decided through good tactics
rather than good ship design. I feel like FT has been slowly drifting
towards being decided in the drydock.

Also, the effectiveness of attack craft are partially balanced by the
fact that you don't really know ex ante which types you will need. Do
you assume your opponent will bring lots of attack craft of his own
(and bring interceptors to prepare for it)? Or do expect a foe without
fighters, leading you to take attack or torp fighters? Swing role or
multirole fighters let you make that decision on the fly. So you're
paying points for the bays you save (and the mass of structure and
drives that support them), and you're ALSO paying for reducing risk
and uncertainty.

Besides, we already HAVE multirole fighters. They're called "fighters"
and they're the default that you buy if you don't want to mess around
with upgrade rules. If what we really want is to have Really Good
Multirole Fighters, then why not have a design that optimizes some of
those into Really Good Interceptors, Really Good Attack Fighters and
Really Good Torpedo Fighters?

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:

> I'm not sure I'd make the multi-role QUITE so expensive a formula. In
the
> case of interceptor+anythingelse, you have to remember it's not just
> fighter v. fighter, and your expensive dog dies as easily to a PDS as
my
> single-role. Long range and heavy are less so, but I still think
there's an
> all eggs in one basket effect somewhere. On the other, other hand, any
> saved fighter bays should be impressively expensive.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l