I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the hypocracy of your statement. Credit wished for the topic to be discussed, and i was simply refuting the explanations he had given. You criticize us for supposedly "abusing and insulting" others and you're response involves labeling us as "trolls" and challenging us to "grow a pair". The problem is that you yourself are creating is continually perpetuating this cycle because you feel that by telling us off will put us in our place or will show your support for your cause but really all you've done is commited the same sin that you accused us of doing. Thus you showcase yourself as a hypocrite and goad us to either replay in kind or to take the time to face your accusations, which just continues the cycle. Now my intent was not to offend Credit, but surely he can see why, trying to validate the reason for flak on capital ships by using a different scifi interpretation as proof for how it should operate in another scifi interpretation just does not work (or even using WWII references).
I think my fruit analogy still works well. SINS is an apple, and lets say BSG, SW, ST & B5 are Oranges. Now these oranges taste awesome, and what credit is saying is that because they taste awesome the apple should taste like them too. Just because those oranges have very unique and interesting tastes does not mean that the apple needs to or should taste like them. (sorry if this has confused anyone further)
Anyway, the point i was making about unbalancing early game mechanics was that it makes strikecraft used offensively and defensively very vunerable against a capital ship unless they are in greater numbers. Let's say a TEC planet has 2 hanger bays and 3 gun platforms. When this Kol arrives, it's flak capability is able to eat up the fighters/bombers quickly before it comes into combat with the defense platforms (4 squadrons vs the equivalent of 4 or 3 flak frigates, not good odds). This seems to make hanger bays fairly unreliable as an early game defense because of the capital ship. The usefulness between the individual capital ships has been brough up before in these forums, and this would make carrier caps obsolete early game (even more so than they are now) simply because if they run into an enemy capital ship about half of their offensive capability is gone (2/3 squadrons vs the equivalent of the same amount of flak frigates, again not good). My other issue was that this upgrade would not be-terribly effective in late game anyway, because if a large fleet is focus firing on your cap ship, there isn't a whole lot you can do to effectively other than what's already available (the abilities for some cap ships, Flak frigates and your own fighters as well as support cruisers to slow the bleeding).
-CU- Raptor brings up a point that is very important, as well as all the people (including Hack) who have mentioned it and have tried to show the pro-flak side the severity of the change: the limit to 3 weapon slots. Yes, you've mentioned that you'd simply manipulate the damage values to get the same damage output for your normal weapons and reduce the damage of the new flak weapon slot, and how apparently easy this is to do but that is changing the capital ships fairly drastically. Not only that but you'd have to stop the flak damage from increasing by level, which again requires going in and causing more problems. That laser damage (for the sake of debate i picked laser) will become less and less effective against higher level cap ships because it doesn't increase in damage (and thus does not keep up with the added armor) but still fires on normal ships (i'm assuming that if fires regularly when there is other non-strike craft targets in range. If not then that will drastically change the way they play because you've just eliminated one of their weapons for solely anti-fighter duty). and people may just making sure that there is other combat targets for capital ships before sending in fighters, thus, completely negating this upgrade. (I'm not 100% on the effect of higher armor and the resulting diminishing returns for damage done so please correct me if I am mistaken)
There just seems so many factors that to tamper with it will end up with creating more issues that will need to be ironed out. And the fact is that to make this work correctly, as cloud has pointed out himself, that it requires testing. Really what needs to be done, is a mod needs to be made, if it already hasn't been, and this idea needs to be tweeked and tested and tweeked and test, and so on and so forth until it seems to work properly, THEN bring your findings to the attention of the developers and the community, because currently, you seem to have no real proof that this will not distort the current balance (such as it is) in a negative fashion. I would think the developers are slightly more worried with not making things worse and keeping the status quo rather than constantly improving.
I'm not trying to aggrivate people with my posts, my comments about Credit's reasons were simply to point out that explaining how game mechanics should resemble using something that is only relevant by a vague relation on subject matter is not a valid reason to argue his point, nor is it valid to use the reasoning that if many people agree with you, that validates your premise (sorry for using Valid 3 times, it just works so well). I'm trying to remove the clutter from his argument so that he can focus on his legitimate points.
Also Cobra's post above pretty much summarized much of what I just rambled on about.