RE: FT: Squadron Question

Here is the reply I thought too terse; leave it to John to allow me to
seem 'measured'. Except for the stupid rhetorical questions...

I certainly thank him for the cost/benefit analysis; I take more of a
'historical(game)/fluff' tack. Does feel a bit weird to be on the same
side of an argument. This too shall pass.

I accept certain WWII naval connections; I reject too close a following
of same. Same as if a game has to cover every movie/TV plot device.

Doug

****
Perennial discussion; why bother with carriers at all, just have
fighters in transports (opening of BSG TOS), and duct-taped to the hulls
of the rest of the ships (Really? New Cylons?). Why pilots, when you can
use AI's that are robust enough to leave in the fighters on the hull
(new Cylons), and save bunk space.

Oh, wait, those are missiles, aren't they? Why bother with any; nanotech
will make them all obsolete! (Yes, yes, I'm a bitter old man remembering
bitter old battles.)

If fighters are interstellar craft, ala X-Wings in SW, they aren't
fighters anymore, are they?

Now, if I can't get a dozen Tie's for the cost of one small starship,
something's cocked. (Balances out, mind you. Tie's are flown by numerous
clone Turkeys; X-Wings by a few, precious Aces.)

And, IF I can't, stop complaining about Jar Jar. You deserve him. (I
appreciate him; no, really.)
***