[Mongoose]

If what Zarathud says is true, and truly did implement hard-coded ship limitations for reasons other than performance/engine capabilities, then I'd go so far to argue that they were wrong to do so.  At best, it seems to be an instance of well-intentioned nannying...but at worst, it smacks of totalitarianism.  If I want to push the engine to its limits and create a massive battle royale, why shouldn't I be able to?  Sure, it may completely suck gameplay-wise, but it's completely on me as the author to ensure that it doesn't.  Just because followed a certain design paradigm when considering the setup and scaling of the campaign missions they created, that doesn't mean that the entire user base needs to be beholden to that same paradigm.  That's the main problem I see with Zarathud's argument; he seems to be implying that, just because 's way is the only way, rather than a single philosophy on how to make an enjoyable mission.

[Akalabeth Angel]

     The thing about large battles, that people have to remember, is that both sides have to commit to them. In order to have a huge battle, you need two sides to send lots of ships to the same place at once. Lots of ships means a lot of potential resources to lose in a single engagement. What sort of battle is happening such that two huge fleets meet at the same space and time?

      And in the real military, it's unlikely that two fleets of equal size will want to commit to one another. You don't want a fair fight. You want at least 2 or 3:1 odds so you can beat the crap out of the enemy and walk away in much better shape. If it's the case of the Vasudans commiting a huge fleet to try and save Vasuda then sure. If it's one last ditch attempt to save Capella then sure. But in the average war, you might not have one huge epic battle because that one battle can decide the fate of the whole damn war. And if that's the case, you sure as hell don't want to be on the loosing end.

[General Battuta]

Those aren't the only way BoE situations can happen, though.

You could have one side with ten or twelve capital ships, and the other jumping in dozens -- perhaps they're Shivans and can simply afford to toss endless numbers at their opponents. This is kind of the way Blue Planet (which I keep holding up as an example, I know) played these situations.

[NGTM-1R]

The thing about large battles, that people have to remember, is that both sides have to commit to them. In order to have a huge battle, you need two sides to send lots of ships to the same place at once. Lots of ships means a lot of potential resources to lose in a single engagement. What sort of battle is happening such that two huge fleets meet at the same space and time?

Thing is, once again the subspace drive messed up the rules, because concentration of force is easy to achieve. If you commit to battle at all, you must be ready to face everything the other guy has very soon, because by rights he can bring in everything he has that quickly. Unless you can give him a compelling reason not to, which is difficult at best (and probably impossible against the Shivans).

Tactically, it would probably make sense to actually give ground after a node blockade breaks and give up valuable installations or other things just so you can tie down some of the other guy's forces.

[Jake2447]

     The thing about large battles, that people have to remember, is that both sides have to commit to them. In order to have a huge battle, you need two sides to send lots of ships to the same place at once. Lots of ships means a lot of potential resources to lose in a single engagement. What sort of battle is happening such that two huge fleets meet at the same space and time?

      And in the real military, it's unlikely that two fleets of equal size will want to commit to one another. You don't want a fair fight. You want at least 2 or 3:1 odds so you can beat the crap out of the enemy and walk away in much better shape. If it's the case of the Vasudans commiting a huge fleet to try and save Vasuda then sure. If it's one last ditch attempt to save Capella then sure. But in the average war, you might not have one huge epic battle because that one battle can decide the fate of the whole damn war. And if that's the case, you sure as hell don't want to be on the loosing end.

Like NGTM-1R said, with the invention of the subspace drive, forces will quickly be deployed.  So as soon as one force attain an advantage, the other side could warp in a huge amount of forces to turn the advantage to their side.  The situation almost fuels itself.

[General Battuta]

A lot of Freespace strategy seems to hinge on drawing enemy forces into small, tactical engagements so that they can't achieve that kind of concentration. Thus the constant raiding of supply depots, gas miners, convoys, and so on.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Thing is, once again the subspace drive messed up the rules, because concentration of force is easy to achieve. If you commit to battle at all, you must be ready to face everything the other guy has very soon, because by rights he can bring in everything he has that quickly. Unless you can give him a compelling reason not to, which is difficult at best (and probably impossible against the Shivans).

      One compelling reason is that he knows you're coming. Ships can be tracked through subspace. For example, if a force is counter attacking and they comitt their forces to someplace deep in the system, the other guy can instead send his forces to the local enemy base and destroy it while his defences are elsewhere.
       Similarly, an attacking force leaves themselves open to counterattack if they commit all their forces and leave an opening to their rear lines. (ie they gain a foothold into a system, and commit to an attack, leaving that same node open and vulnerable to counter attack).

     
       Rather than taking subspace engines at face value, I'd actually investigate the story around the science and see how ships are deployed. If people are making FS2 campaigns, emulate the feel of the universe rather than what's interpreted as being possible. That would be my 2 cents.

[NGTM-1R]

One compelling reason is that he knows you're coming. Ships can be tracked through subspace. For example, if a force is counter attacking and they comitt their forces to someplace deep in the system, the other guy can instead send his forces to the local enemy base and destroy it while his defences are elsewhere.

Actually that's debateable. It's been noted before that every time in FS2 you are warned of an incoming enemy ship, it either just ran a blockade or was otherwise under observation by GTVA forces. There are quite a few times where enemies arrive unannounced as well, when this was not the case. Similarly the wording of Ancients Monologues ("and into subspace they can be tracked") and FS1 briefings on subspace tracking suggest that GTVA subspace tracking technology does not see through the barrier between subspace and normal space. Instead it seems to somehow analyze the ship's entry to subspace and deduce the specific what-have-you necessary to get into the same "tunnel" as well as where the ship's exit point is. (Which is interesting because it suggests that subspace entry is nondirectional, i.e. your exit point need not bear any relation to the direction you were facing on entry, and also that you cannot change course in subspace or even exit early, once you enter your exit point is fixed.)

[Gregster2k]

I have something to add, NGTM-1R:
In Good Luck, you cannot warp out, and the fighters exit the subspace aperture from the exact same portal as the Lucifer in the ending cinematic of FS1, rather than coming out of their own small portals. All the ships exit subspace at roughly the same time after entry, even nearly correspondent with their positions alongside the Lucifer before contact with the exit point.