Re: FB designs & fighters (& strawmen)

On Monday, May 6, 2002, at 09:53 PM, Eric Foley wrote:

> What I _really_ think is that the FB1 ships have three simple, glaring
> weaknesses.
>
> (1)  They have no coherent plan for dealing with a concentrated
fighter
> assault.  That touches on other potential disasters if any of them 
> take a
> serious missile or plasma hit as well, but the general idea is still 
> simple:
> their point defense is toothless.

Just as other design "genres" have differing criteria for their ships 
the FB ships have theirs.  As already noted they are not optimized for a

single attack role, being made to resembled a space opera like setting, 
one which has variety in mind.	Of course this is my take.  Thus for 
their approach they work against one another.  Against one another their

point defense while maybe not stopping things dead, doesn't look too 
inferior as there are few ships that concentrate on a single role as 
well (ie. missile platforms, soap bubble carriers, etc.)  In fact too 
many PDS would be a liability against some situations - taking up some 
valuable space that can be otherwise used for other things.  The key is 
having the right amount of systems for the needed chore at hand.

Another issue is there are a variety of playing fields to consider.  The

2 big ones - cinematic vs. vector and open vs. closed playing fields.  
All four "basic" settings have to be used when talking about balance and

whether something wins regularly since these are all regular types of 
playing fields for use by the rules.  Any point system is going to have 
its issues with some of these game situations.	For instance, low speed 
on a closed map using vector is not nearly the disadvantage as in 
cinematic on an open field.   Nor is allowing the slower vessel to 
always declare that it's sitting and spinning in place when discussing 
balance issues.  Differing scenario situations are going to make this an

automatically losing tactic.  It has to be considered but not at the 
expense of other situations or requirements.

> (2)  They devote too much of their total mass to things other than 
> weapons.
> That is the failing that is most emphasized with the FSE BDN:  75% of 
> its
> mass is taken up in drives, hull, and screens.  But it's only the
worst 
> of
> the lot -- the NAC SDN devotes 68% of its mass to it, the NSL SDN 
> devotes
> 67%, the FSE SDN devotes 65%, and the ESU SDN devotes 70%.  What I 
> really
> think is that all of those percentages are too damned high -- I'm 
> proposing
> that there's a point of diminishing returns from those systems where 
> you're
> cutting too deep into your weapons load for what you get from the
extra
> resilience or speed, and that every capital ship in FB1 far exceeds
that
> threshold.

I disagree - under differing situations and battlefield requirements as 
alluded to above these.

Kevin Walker