15 minutes ago, Heimdallson said:As I understood it, the other side's point is that while certainly doable, it's not optimal to run 2 titles instead of 3. To me, it seems that you mix up innovation with doing something differently for the sake of doing something differently it.
3 instead of 2 titles is a very small difference compared to estimating a ship's efficiency. Take the Pelta, for example, which used to be shunned (at least in my area and subjective impression of "the internet's" opinion, yet only recently, it used to gain popularity as people found new / rediscovered known ways to run it.
Discussing the Task Force titles is different. There are mathematical, objective arguments as for why 3 is better than 2. It's doable, nobody denied it. It's like "innovating" the bicycle by inventing a bike with square wheels. Even before you try it, people can say that it's not optimal - for clear reasons and testing will certainly yield the same results as theory dictates.
You are adamant on your opinion and good luck with that list and trying it, have fun playing as usual. I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between theoretical / mathematical thinking ahead and your example of ship popularity.
Cheers!
Its a bigger difference than you see. Think on it if I was to add a 3rd hammer what do I lose for that? It would be the cr90 which is perfect for dodonna because I can have it stand off and compete. If I took the 3rd hammerhead for the antillies then where does dodonna go? On the ships slated for potential destruction? Cant go on the flotilla.
Now the @BrobaFett and others advocate for just removing the TF and adding something like external racks which admittedly is HIGHLY likely where I will go with this but I want a few tests before I make that determination.
I dont use the math side much. It plays a part in my mental simulations but in list building I will build what looks fun and make changes as I find areas needing fixes. I played 4 nebs like that. SUCH A FUN LIST!