Thanks for the examples, slapshot.
I have a hard time agreeing with the point in the first example, though. Every single time I’ve heard communications about an enemy fleet, the first thing most folks try to do is sink the carrier. That seems to be the overriding goal of most attack pilots that I have encountered in that situation. So, it seems a bit disingenuous to expect someone to do otherwise when sinking the carrier is considered standard operating procedures.
In the second example, you’re assuming a whole lot. You’re essentially speaking for every single pilot that was involved in the furball. How do we know that every pilot involved in the fight was just there for the furball? Perhaps a group of them were working to “CAP” the field and/or eliminate the fighter threat so that they could hit an adjacent field without fear of enemy fighters coming in from somewhere else.
Regardless, you’re getting mad at folks for playing the game the way it was obviously designed to be played.
Now, let me say that I never accused the furballers of ruining anything. In fact, I don’t think any of the strat players have been crying about furballers “ruining the game for everyone else”. The crying and fussing seems to only be coming from one side of the debate. But, using your logic, I could answer your question “Can you give me an example of a situation in which one "furballer" easily ruined the strategic enjoyment of many?”
With…
A group of friends decide to up a few formations of bombers to go hit a strat target. They’re all having a jolly time. Then, during their climb-out, they get jumped by a bandit from a nearby furball. The bandit shoots a number of them down and generally ruins the experience of the bomber pilots.
Is this not, essentially, the same thing?
In both situations, you’ve got a “bad guy” who is completely within his rights, playing the game the way he wants to. It just so happens that his way of playing the game doesn’t mesh with the way the other folks want to play the game.
In your example, the furballers now have to up from a different field. In my example, the bombers have to up from a different field and/or restart their whole time-consuming climb-out porcess.
In your example, the furballers were presumably having a good time playing the game the way they wanted to, until a bad apple came along. In my example, the bombers were having a good time, until a bad apple came along.
In your example, one of the fighters could’ve potentially shot down the bomber. In my example, one of the bombers could’ve potentially shot down the fighter.
In your example, the furballers could’ve posted a fighter at a high altitude to prevent the bomber from penetrating. In my example, the bombers could’ve had fighter escorts to prevent the enemy attack.
Yes, there are some differences in your scenario vs mine, but the gist of it is – someone doesn’t “play along” with the others, and so the group must alter their playing style.
Or, as has already been pointed out, what about the lone fighter who shoots down the goon after a perfectly executed mission? I guess you could say that he’s just doing what fighters do… but then, the bomber in your scenario was just doing what bombers do.
Of course, this is pretty useless to debate, since I’m guessing most strat players accept the fact that they’re going to run into furballers who are going to force them to alter their playing style. It seems to be the furballers who refuse to alter their style.
If the fighters want to only fight, can they not go into the DA? If the bombers want to only bomb, can they not go into the TA? Yet, everyone continues to play in the MA…
Anyhow, I appreciate the helpful response of those folks who actually tried to answer my initial questions. Thanks all.
