My mistake, I was mixing up the wing counts with the Gladius. Still, even at three to a squad, they just aren't worth that outrageous fleet cost. It's really hard to justify spending 10 FP on a fighter wing when the unit itself has significant limitations and another 2 points gets you a midline destroyer.
People haven't been getting aggressive with you. We're not even trying to gang up on you. You just happen to find many people independently coming to a conclusion contrary to your own, because most people are going to look at a unit with that kind of associated cost and expect it to do much more than the Warthog is capable of. It's not to say the Warthog is useless or even bad as a design; it's just an inefficient use of a very precious resource.
What do people think of the Torpedo Bombers? For 5 points they can put a pretty big dent into things...but then again, for 5 points I could just load up a Lasher with Atropos Racks and missile upgrades.
and that is where the fallacy begins:
by looking just at OP cost, all the fighters look meh in comparison.
however, at some point you will reach a stage where it would be more beneficial to replace ships with fighters due to the fact that those ships are barely contributing to the fights either
because they can't get there or the field is so saturated that they are taking more time maneuvering than they are shooting.
EDIT: basically what i said here, which is getting ignored for w/e reason:
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=3919.msg61338#msg61338your example:
in a fairly big brawl, how do you get the lasher through everything to deliver the payload? bombers have no such issue since they can fly over everything, however the lasher is going to need to spend alot of time not dying to threats that the bombers could have avoided by just flying over friendly forces.
Address does not equal response. If you did address his points, link to your responses rather than ignoring his points.
and i would have (like i did so with a different poster earlier in this thread) if the post i was linking to -wasn't- further down than the post he quoted. simply reading on would have had his points addressed, hence why i said what i said.