Re: Conformal Movement

Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk

>Jared E Noble wrote:
>>
>> realjtl@sj.bigger.net on 07/17/98 03:06:35 PM
>
>...Many snips, various places...JTL
>> >> Anyway - the presence of a FleetCon allows the ship to link with
other
>>    "The squadron must maintain a tight cohesion - maybe 3-4 MU"
>> If you have someone at 10", and others at 33", how many do you have
in
>> between (can you say "long line waiting to get cut in half?")

>XXX   The vision I had was: A long line of scouts with the Superships
>at the end of the line.   It really depends upon the defination of
>'cohesion'.  If it is linear then my statement is correct, and the
>concept is open to abuse with the line of scouts.   If the cohesion
>is defined a circular with the 'Flag in the middle'  the best that
>can be done is one range band. (assuming beams here).	 If you allow
>the 'flag' to stack on top of another 'flag' then my statement is
>again true, but much more expensive to impliment due to the ship/
>section/squadrom/fleet costs required to carry it off.   JTL  XXX
Well, in networking parlance, I was thinking more of a star topology
(computing 'tree'). Lets say for discussion that cohesion distance is 4
MU.
Each ship must be within 4MU of the ship which is 'superior' to it in
the
chain, not just any other ship. Ever played illuminati? remember the
control arrows?  Anyway, If you wanted to have a degenerate chain, of 1
to
1 to 1, that's your business, but in order to maximize the length, you
have
to buy a fleetcon for each step of the chain (and remember, we want them
to
be a bit pricy).  Is is worth the cost?  Admittedly this requires a
little
bit more paperwork, but I think not much.  And when you have a heavily
cascaded topology some well placed shots could cut off large portions of
your squadron.	And remember that 1 turn penalty for being forcibly
removed
from the chain!

Here's another thing I would like to throw out - the maximum benefit to
weapons fire is 1 range bracket FOR THAT WEAPON.  Beam weapons have a
12"
bracket, so conceivably a ship out at 45" could fire as if at 36" _but
that's it_ just one die.  A pulse torpedo (6" range bracket) could go
from
out of range to hit on a 6, but not if it's beyond 36".

<snip>

XXX Suggestion: Leave the mass of the 'Fleetcon' reasonably low, but
>devise a method of using the much neglected advanced sensors as part
>of the package.   JTL	 XXX
---
Well, some time back I wrote some custom fighter design rules, (on
mark's
page, but the HTML got garbled in the conversion) and I had someone not
on
the list contact me this morning about ECM/sensors on fighters. Not
having
done much with either ECM or sensors, here was my first thought - Allow
fighters with Special sensors (Recon Fighters) that allow a ship with
Enhanced or Superior sensors to base their range calculations for sensor
work from the fighter, rather than the ship itself.  Of course limits on
how far the fighter can be from the ship with the sensors.  Similar idea
for ECM (Wild Weasel?) - it extends the already existing Area effect ECM
to
include a globe around the fighter, which must be just within range of
the
AECM.  (of course I don't remember the range of the ECM in the first
place)

Anyway, back to the point. Might something like that work? - use other
parts of the squadron as the sensor inputs for the heavy horsepower
sensor
platform?.   Or how about allowing enhanced or superior sensors within
the
squadron to gain power as the squadron size increases - As the entire
squadron becomes a massive synthetic Array?

>> >	 Can this new FCS be exchanged for an old without penelty?
>> >	 What is the point cost?
>>
>> Jared Noble
>
>bye for now,
>John L.

Does any of that sound more reasonable?  (Why do I never explain myself
well?)

Jared