Yes, I'm actually going to post! *gasp*
I highly disagree with the idea of having more smaller ships. Think of it this way. Smaller ships may have a bit more firepower, more manueverable, but they are weak in defense compared to the "super" ship.
Let's look in our own history for examples, shall we? The Hood & The Prince of Wales vs. The Bismark. The Hood was a Battlecruiser by definition. She sacraficed deck armor for speed and maneuverability, but she got taken out easily. Her guns were about the same power as the Bismark's, but here armor sucked.
That's like sending two Orions or Hecates vs 1 Colossus. The Colossus would destroy the other ships, while taking damage, heavy most likely, but she would live to fight again. Why? If she targeted all of her guns on 1 ship, she could destroy it, and vastly improve her odds. You guys just think more guns are better, but they aren't. You're ship that holds the guns, must be able to survive.
Basically, you need a Capital ship in a fleet, or it's pathetic. Would a fleet comprised of mainly Frigates attack a fleet with only a handful of Ships of the Line and the same number of frigates?
But the other thing you must have is balance. You cannot have a fleet comprised of all Destroyers or all super ships, you must have a combined group. Just like a pyramid, more weaker ships, fewer stronger ships. Look at a modern task force and you'll see what I'm talking about.
So you should have a couple fleets comprised of 1-2 Collosi, 4 Destroyers, 6-8 Corvettes, and then cruisers. The thing FS lacked was FLEET engagements. It had ship to ship, but never massive battles, and that is usually what occurs.
------------------
"I am about to drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminant justice!" -Starcraft
"First rule of government spending, why build one for the price of one, when you can have two for twice the price." - S.R. Hadden (Contact)