WOW people, I'm amazed apart from one attempted Hi-Jack, the comments are very constructive. Thanks to all who replied.
So for the record I tend to less restriction but don't like BB fest or the like. I think variety will produce the results we want, so droner is good but the escort trumps the droner PvP, the Escort get trumped by the CC, every body has to be wary of the Commando cruiser, but it is of its self vulnerable to being sniped to death. Fleets can knock out CCs but are difficult to control and do what you want, one player with a fleet is two players in PvP ships kebab.
So far as campaigns are concerned I like PvP, but am equally interested in the Strategic element, the map set up, lines of attack, bluff and real attack, I do not want a small area of map where we basically queue up for trench warfare. VCs for both elements, and I think people have to face the fact in a camapaign, if they lose a big ship they should be heavily penalised, it's not GSA, where it doesn't matter if you lose a big ship, it is supposed to be a campaign where IRL (if that expression can be used about a fantasy game) the loss of a capital asset REALLY matters.
So for current purposes (none automated systems usable now) just have a well constructed map (destructble base PLEASE, the strategic element this would introduce for droners cannot be over emphasised) with VCs for BIG ships and map objectives and no restrictions on ships or fleets, each race has its time, with drone speed, fighters, PFs , BCH/Vs, but if you must restrict something then BBs only.
Thankyou all for responding.
BTW I played SFB for 20 years and F&E for 10, and would be happy for them to be applied if internals were halved, drone speeds changed and ESGs affected allied ships, as well as true fighter and PF numbers on CVs and PFTs, to more accurately reflect those other, different and distinct games. Also ditch the scouts or reduce BPV to reflect NO sensors.
Topic: What exactly do people want? (Read 7052 times)