Re: UNSC beta and FB3

Jared wrote:

> 4)  If we are commited to the "Graser" concept,

With all the caveats, it doesn't sound like you want to change the
graser, it sounds like your group doesn't even _like_ it and wants it
replaced with an entirely new weapon system. While the weapon system you
suggest sounds interesting, is there any particular reason your group
doesn't like the graser, given that you haven't even tried it yet?

> how about a more
> generic name that reflects its relation to the beam/pulsar/stinger
> family.  "Graser", "Maser", "Mason gun/accelerator", etc. are too
> setting specific.

I haven't read any of the fiction where the term "graser" comes from.
The name never struck me as being setting specific. 

I did a quick Google search and found a number of sites that list a
"graser" as a "gamma ray laser". In fact, the Photonics Dictionary
(http://www.photonics.com/directory/XQ/ASP/QX/index.htm) gave the
definition as, "An acronym of gamma ray amplification by stimulated
emission of radiation. It is a gamma ray laser that operates between
energy levels established by metastable isomeric transitions in the
nucleus."

This is an industry site, not a sci-fi site. It sounds as though
"graser" is as generic a term as "laser".

> These were designed bythe same person or commitee that did the other
> human fleets, right?	Sigh. 

No. No, they weren't. As far as I can recall, Jon T. did all the FB1 and
FB2 ship designs, and Dean did the UNSC with input from other playtest
list members, but little to no input from Jon.

> It would have been nice if we could get
> away from the 
> "two largest capital ships have a couple of fighter groups no matter
> the background blurb" 
> and the 
> "collection of ships rather than a coordinated fleet" syndromes  which
> aflict all human, KV and Phaln ship designs.

What would make a "coordinated fleet" in your opinion? How do the UNSC
ships not work together, or what is missing? What would you like to see
a "coordinated fleet" look like?

I agree with your comment about the fighters. I think I would actually
have preferred the UNSC to avoid fighters altogether. My understanding
is that there will be at least one new fleet that's "fighter heavy"
compared to existing FB fleets. There may be another new fleet that will
be "fighter light", but I can't be sure as I tend to focus more on the
SG2 side of things. Your criticism stands, but it could very well be
that another fleet will fit that bill.

--
Allan Goodall		   agoodall@att.net
http://www.hyperbear.com   agoodall@hyperbear.com