Re: UNSC beta and FB3

[agoodall@xxxxxxx]

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