Re: Thoughts on FB3

AEBrain's IF design comments

>>If you'd like to lobby for saintly approval of the Islamic Fed
>>ships on
http://www.angelfire.com/va/laserlight/fullthrust.html
>>(or maybe .htm, I don't recall--if you get lost, just go to
>>/laserlight/ and look around), I'd certainly be happy.   Or
>>suggestions for alternate ships.
>
>I have a twofold problem with these ships:
>Firstly, off-centre firing arcs seem contrary to the spirit of
the other designs.
>It's very minimaxing to have a "spiral of doom".

I play vector almost exclusively--as my teammembers in the
ongoing PBeM can testify, sorry guys--where this is not an
issue.	It would be good to have more feedback on how these
designs work for cinematic.

>Secondly, and most importantly, the models are symmetric. If
they were "outriggers"
>like some of the NAC designs, or the OU Light Carrier, so the
left side was
>distinctly different from the right side, then I'd say that
off-centre arcs
>weren't just allowable, they'd be desirable. But the ships are
symmetric: and
>IMHO (emphasis on the H here) it just wouldn't feel right to
have them with
>assymetric weapons. Paired LF/F and RF/F would be fine. Even
LF/LR RF/RR. But
>not LF/F or LF/LR on its own.

All the PDS are on the other side. :-)

>Trouble is, that if you remove the IF trademark assymetric
firing arcs, you're
>left with an FSE-like design that's possibly too FSE-like.
Still maybe not -
>the Needles and MT missiles certainly make em different. If
instead of 3 Beam-3s
>with FL/F arcs they had 4 Beam-3s with F arc (and 2 pts to
spare for a Beam-2)
>they'd be both different from anyone else, and fearsome at long
range.

That's a Mameluke you're thinking of, I take it.  Not a totally
representative ship.  The "classic" IF ship has EITHER a mass of
Beam-2's in F/FP/AP OR a mass of SMR's and great motivation to
run in, shoot, and get expeditiously out of the way.

However, I have thought about upgrading them to Beam 3's.  I'm
not totally happy with it because my postulate is the IF isn't
as high-tech as the Major Powers and consequently wouldn't have
the ability to hit at range as well the the MP's ships.  Same
reason I didn't give them any torps.   I suppose, though, we can
say the FSE sold them the tracking gear; by the time of the 1st
Xeno War ("XWI"?  along the lines of WWI and WWII?) it's hardly
brand new tech.

>The MT missile costs were given in FB2. So we're really bound
by them, it would
>need a powerful argument indeed to convince me that the Chaos
and Confusion
>of changing the Mass/Pts cost would be worth any benefit.

(much snippage)

I agree with everything except the feel of it.	I don't get the
feeling that the MT missile as described is sufficiently
different.

Actually what I'd like is a [long range+hit whatever's closest]
or [short range+pick your target] choice.  Not necessarily in
the same missile.