• From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Pre-WW1 economies

kevinsmith67206 wrote:

> I don't know that I entirely agree with this.
> If someone wants to field a lone battleship or battlescruiser
> they should be allowed to do so, without any artificial restrictions.
> However, there should also be a reason to take the smaller
> ships as well. In my opinion the strategy of what is fielded
> by a player should be dictated more by play style and rule mechanics.

I don't think anyone is (well, I'm not smile) talking about completely eliminating player choice; after all, the combat rating will continue to be the final arbiter of a balanced force.

However, I think fleet composition guidelines would go a long way towards providing additional flavor to the game...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-30
  • Posts: 272

Re: Pre-WW1 economies

cricket wrote:

I was considering a "pyramid scheme", in which a fleet must include more ships at each size class than it has in the next level up... i.e.,

I've got one V.Large ship, so I have to have at least two Large ships.
I've got two Large ships, so I have to have at least three Medium ships.
I've got three Medium ships, so I have to have at least four Small ships.
I've got four Small ships, so I have to have at least five V.Small ships.

Thus, to put just one V.Large ship on the table, I have to have at least 14 other ships out as well...

...eek...

Maybe that's too harsh...

Perhaps.  OTOH, what if you "condensed" a bit:

One VL or L ship requires
One M or S ship, which requires
Two S or VS ships

That would allow a minimum four-ship squadron to get a VL or L on the table, and give you a fair amount of freedom of choice as to the size of the smaller ships.  It seems to me that L & VL hulls are always major combatants, while cruisers tend to be M or S, and light escorts are generally VS or at most S.

Rich