What I was saying—and continue to say—is that as a whole, the universe is seeing production growth.
You position appears to be that naval industry in 3145 is not in a position to increase warship production.
As noted in the same paragraph: "The poster believed aerospace assets were becoming or are increasingly rare—they're not. The only real rarity in aerospace as specifically laid out in the story are WarShips—which is an accountable asset. Of course, I'm not talking about DropShips or other aerospace units already marked rare or extinct. What I was saying—and continue to say—is that as a whole, the universe is seeing production growth."
Okay, I guess I do have to ask redundant questions: is it or is it not the case that Catalyst has established a certain level and intensity of conflict for the 3100s era? Is it or is it not the case that overall attrition cannot rise too high or fall too low without falling outside those established levels? Is it or is it not the case that production is balancing attrition and that excess production is directly measurable via growing number of regiments?
Short answer: No. If by established intensity you mean the Victoria War, the Capellan Crusades, the 2nd Combine-Dominion War all took place in the early 3100s, then yes, those conflicts have been established. As for established levels, I'm not sure what you're getting at? Levels of what?
Production and attrition vs. growing number of regiments can be faction specific. One of the main reasons why attrition and excess production are not directly linked to growing new regiments is directly related to the table top game. Whatever you need as a player is available and faction growth is directly related to plot needs. Generally speaking, the correlation is really only applicable to a few unit types—WarShips for one—because as I mentioned earlier, they're numbered.
Here's the thing: I'm not frustrated.. I have my own solutions etc. and I'm not terrifically invested in whatever secret plan Catalyst has prepared. I know you want to push Catalyst's solution as The One True Solution but that shouldn't make everybody else's assessments irrelevant or impossible.
Not quite. Please refer to the remainder of my post.
....That said, I'm fully aware of the problems facing the game system and setting as a whole. As someone who is by no means an official on the subject of game play or rules, I feel like era specific rules and tech might be one way to compartmentalize dynamically opposed fan groups, tech, rule sets, etc. That might be a better fit instead of new core rule books every X amount of years. GW went that route, and while it's easy to add new units, tech, etc., it's a rather exclusive way to grow. A more inclusive, equally supported setup sounds like a much better alternative.
Again, I'm no expert, but both options will require "retcon" to some degree that I'm not sure either is really possible. Perhaps a combination of both...
Not only was I in agreement with some of Dread's suggestions, I was offering personal suggestions based on actual professional experience in the game industry. At no point did I say his assessments were irrelevant or impossible. Do I foresee a great deal of difficulty in breaking from the established setup? Absolutely. Is there inherent risk to making massive changes to game play and rule set? Absolutely. Is it relevant to point both of those things out? I believe it's required to make an informed decision. If you're skin isn't thick enough to deal with a potentially negative response you're clearly not suited to the type of collaborative development this requires. Just because you didn't like what you heard, doesn't mean I found Dread's assessment irrelevant. Quite the contrary.
This isn't a high horse, but most people tend to forget that BattleTech is a business. If it doesn't generate money, it ceases to exist. This means catering to the largest percent who will enjoy and buy the game. Aerospace only players and aerospace only fans are in the minority. It doesn't mean BattleTech should ignore or marginalize them, but it means that the cost v. benefit analysis will be more heavily scrutinized. Will aerospace fans take their money elsewhere if BattleTech doesn't "bring back" the WarShip? Maybe, but it may be more cost effective for BattleTech to just let them leave. I honestly don't know, and I'm happy I'm not in a position to have to make that kind of decision.
In the case of WarShips it "seems" like we're in the middle of a lull. With the number of vessels currently active and the state of their support apparatus in the current universe, the unit has been effectively reduced to a plot element. It doesn't mean they're gone, it just means their meaningful numbers are only enough to support the current plot. Does this mean they're dead? I have no idea.
Optimistically, it could mean we've reached a baseline from which we can figure out how to correct both gameplay and future universe issues before reintroducing the unit back to levels which take it out of plot element and into the realm of your average BattleMech regiment. Assuming, of course, we can find the right solutions to our problems.
Pessimistically, this could very well be the functional end of the WarShip. It will remain a plot element, but dwindle until the unit isn't even relevant for that job. I just don't know. All of us will just have to wait and see.
