Prev: Re: FT Fiction Part Two of two (Long) Next: Re: Fiddling with units

Re: Conformal Movement

From: "Jared E Noble" <JNOBLE2@m...>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:35:35 -0900
Subject: Re: Conformal Movement

This is kind of the idea I had in mind when I thought about a
(or Flag) system (in combination with FireCon and Flight Control - but
I'm not trying to reopen that discussion.)

Anyway - the presence of a FleetCon allows the ship to link with other
ships (thinking 2 per flagcon?) in a more tightly controlled squadron -
sharing targeting and defensive nets.  The squadron must maintain a
cohesion - maybe 3-4 MU, which could be done with the conformal movement
you said.  Benefits are that ships in the squadron can attack a target
the range of the closest squadron member - (so those leading escorts
fine-tune the firing of the trailing heavies).	I'm at a loss as to how
share defensive capabilities effectively.  What I'm looking for is
essentially a shared PDS system.  For example, the small escorting ships
with no ADAF (or ADFC) can use their PDAF or PDS in the area defense
but only in protection of other ships linked into the squadron.

So, obviously this needs to cost something.
First - there is a definate limit of how many ships can be in the
- first thought is flag+2 ships per FleetCon, but I haven't tested it. 
you want a bigger squadron, get more FleetCon. (And yes, I do think that
cascading fleetcon would work fine).
Second - I envision FleetCon as being a fairly expensive system -
Definately Mass 3 in FT2 (I wanted all control system the same mass,
could vary), I'm thinking 5 in FB - cost probably in the 20+ range.
Third - It ties up 1 firecon on the subordinate unit. - I want to
the control dedication needed to feed at this data trough - the only
problem is this mean that many escorts could be used only for their PDS
forward edge spotting ability (i.e. - they are closer, so they improve
heavies range bands).  Any thoughts on representing this, or is it even
worth trying?
Fourth - Obviously, while in the link a subordinate ship is not
with full individual freedom.  I am thinking (and this may vary with
estimate of turn length) that if a ship is forcibly removed from the
(parent unit destroyed of FleetCon damaged - forcing them out) then on
following turn they suffer negative effects as they are inbetween
independant and Subordinate operating states.

Lastly - I've said before I think FT needs some sort of morale rules - I
still think so.  The presence of FleetCon (Flag) should have a positive
effect on Morale - likewise, watching your flag go up in flames should
incur a negative penalty - I'm still mulling this one over.

Hopefully I explained that better than the last time.  Comments?


Conformal Movement
I think this came about from worrying about SMLs and how they engage the
nearest ship but it also seems useful for lazy players.
This may simplify movement in big fleet engagements. Any number of
smaller and more agile ships may be nominated as escorts for a larger,
slower ship. Each of the escorts will maintain a fixed position relative
to the ship they are escorting so should probably be within a short
distance of her (2 MU or so). During movement move the escorted ship
normally and then move all the others so that they retain their position
relative to the escorted ship.
Should the escorts be damaged so as to reduce their thrust rating to
equal to or less than the escorted ships they can no longer function as
I like this idea but it may be abusive. It will hinder the use of SMLs
although this may be more 'realistic', they now have to tear a hole in
the escort screen before they can reach the heavies. Another loss (for
good or ill) is that it would simplify fleet movement, this saves time
but a commander (and his opponent(s)) now have a much clearer idea of
where his ships are going.


Get Your Private, Free Email at

Prev: Re: FT Fiction Part Two of two (Long) Next: Re: Fiddling with units