Re: Carrier status, was Re: More Fleet Book questions

At 15:00 2/06/98 -0900, you wrote:
>>    The fleet book has optional "Core" systems which represent bridge,
>life
>>support and basically a reactor (called engineering IIRC as some @#@$%
>>friend has borrowed my FB) which come as standard. What you're talking
>>about here is basically the bridge from the Core systems only much
more
>>vulernable as there are special rules regarding Core systems. Both
Bridge
>>and your Fleetcon would work well with Schoon's "Crew Qaulity and
>>Experience" rules posted on 12-5-98.
>>
>I have GOT to get my hands on a Fleet Book!  What does this bridge
involve?
>(without reposting all of Jon's hard work). I looked at Schoon's post
to
>refresh my memory, and while it does touch somewhat on what I have
thought
>about, not really.  I'm thinking more on the lines of Formation Flying.
A
>group of ships flying in formation, which satisfies certain
requirements
>(say squadron coherency) and is linked through the Fleet Control system
>gains special benefits.  If one ship in the squadron has it's drive
>damaged, the whole squadron must adjust their behavior or the wounded
must
>drop out.  While in squadron, the ships could perhaps share their
tactical
>defense net (maybe similar benefits as ADS, but only within the
squadron)
>and share targeting information, etc. Presence of the Flag also has a
>benefit to Morale. The fact of Fleet Withdrawl and individual ship
>surrender I feel is relatively important. I see the individual crew
quality
>issue and even the difference of captain leadership ability to be a
>separate (but worthy of development) piece of the puzzle.  Right now
fleets
>seem to be a collection of individual ships that do their stuff in the
same
>general area - I would like to see cohesive unit actions.  Or to get
>new-agey, SYNERGY!

	Love to give you the whole details but some "friend" has
borrowed mt copy
and will have for at least another week. IIRC the bridge did not affect
play that much as given in FB but as I say I don't have the book in
front
of me.

>So is ADS only the PDS upgrade, or is it also a PDS? In other words, if
I
>have an ADS but no PDS, do I still have any defense?

	My reading is NO. ADF acts as a fire control, not a weapon.

>>>So, what do you think? (puts on flame-retardant clothing)
>>>
>>
>>    Are we that bad?
>>
>>    Tony
>>    twilko@ozemail.com.au
>>
>
>Nah, just exercising my persecution complex...

	Ah huh. A case of "don't try to guilt trip me I'm Catholic" ?.
	(Sorry Pope I didn't mean it. Where did that thundercloud come
from...?)

	Tony.
	twilko@ozemail.com.au