Re: [GZG] Monster ships

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTom 

The RTB to rearm is something I took from the description of the ESU
ship that has the missile racks.

I agree that the any and all fleets can take logistics ships to the area
of operations, they then need to be defended by escorts, if brought near
the combat zone or the fighting ships have to pull back to rearm leaving
the battle area to beam armed ships. It all depends on how you want to
run your supply PSB.

With ww1 and 2 era ships I agree that smaller ships were more limited in
range, with FT spacecraft there's no reason why the endurance of
destroyers is less than that of a dreadnought. If everyone is using
fusion reactors to generate power then they would last for a long time
and using the FT drive formula a ship would use up reaction mass at the
same rate.

Cruisers have proved to be very valuable in most of the campaign games.
They are big enough to take on an enemy ship and have a chance at
surviving. Light cruisers have a key role in hunting down enemy
destroyer groups without being prohibitively expensive to field in
numbers.

Most admirals don't bother with large numbers of large ships, they are
expensive to build and risky to use. They represent a major commitment
of resources and clearly signal the intentions. No one sends a super
dreadnought to the border "to visit the colonies". Sending the
dreadnought to the side of you territory also means you invite attack
from people on the other side of your territories.

Destroyers don't really have any role in fleet actions. They go pop
really quickly in fleet actions so unless you allow them to be raiders
they really have little or no role in the game. Scouts would be mass 3
sensor drones and then you just build fleet ships.

All our games use cinematic movement. We would rather play space opera
type games than get too tied up in the real physics.