Re: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval

Air Power Viewport:
    I believe if using this viewpoint the best analogy would be fighters
(screen) protecting a raid of bombers (convoy). In this manner the
escorts
must leave their charges and engage the enemy outside of the enemy's
maximum
engagement range of the convoy.
    In my opinion this doesn't work with the FT mentality as ships can
take
a pounding from the escorts and still pour enough firepower into the
convoy
to serious blow its day. The inability to get quick engage-n-kills makes
it
difficult to reduce the attacker's numbers sufficiently for the defender
to
win.

Naval Power Viewport:
    Looking at current doctrine you have a screen of ships protecting
the
convoy from all threats. This screen is responsible for localizing and
neutralizing threats - and if a weapon is launched attempting to
intercept
that weapon to the best of its ability. This is very difficult to do
when
the weapon connects to the target in fractions of a second.
    The methods used for interception by other missiles, spoofing
sensors by
chaff, and finally direct engagement by guns.

    I believe what FT needs are methods used for fleet defense. Screens
protect individual ships, but there seems to be no way to extend
protection
beyond your own ship (except against fighters) - which is exactly what a
escort was designed to accomplish.
    Against fighters/missiles you have ADFC-PDS/C-batteries - so this is
well covered within 6". That leaves nova/wave cannons, torpedoes, and
beam
batteries. Personally, I think Nova/Wave cannons are so over the top
that I
like the fact that they cannot be intercepted or really stopped.
    For the torpedoes I cannot believe you cannot use the same
anti-fighter/anti-missile guns against a energy torpedo. I figure I am
just
missing the rules somewhere. Therefore I will tackle what I see to be
the
big problem - beam batteries. I believe that there needs to be system of
anti-beam defense.
    I have given out my copy of 3G2 (3G3 is on order), so I don't have
my
material on particle accelerators (beams in their universe). So, I don't
really know the speed of a beam battery - or if it delivers all of the
damage in a punch method (like a gun) or constant (like a
flame-thrower). I
will try to tackle each below.

Beams:
    Well, FT is meant to be fairly abstract so we only get a rough
introduction into what they classify as a beam weapon. Most of my
experience
comes from Laser drillers for GE Aircraft Engines - so it is fairly
limited;
however, I will sprinkle my comments with science-fiction acceptance of
beams.
    If beams are like modern laser drillers then they are only effective
at
their focal point - better drillers have more precise focal points.
Therefore, in order for a beam weapon to be effective it is probably
constantly adjusting its focal point to drill into the ship. In order to
reduce this weapon's effectiveness, you just have to throw off the
alignment. I imagine this can be done with a
magnetic/gravitic/reflective
device.
    If beams are constant streamers (like water drillers) then they are
equally devastating anywhere from the end of the barrel to the point
they
make contact. However, in this case we can probably assume that the
damage
is spread somewhat constantly over the time the stream is in contact
with
the ship. This gives the escort time to sense the beam and partially
intercept the beam with some device - it won't stop all the damage, but
it
might reduce its effectiveness.

Final Idea:
    I suggest adding an Area Beam Defense System (ABDS) - similar to a
dedicate PDS+ADFC. Any ship with an active BDS can surround themselves
in a
6" radius dust cloud (acts as the dust cloud terrain for all ships
firing
into or out of the cloud). This system has MASS 3 and costs 10 points.
If
this is too powerful then make it this ship buy shots say MASS 1+1/2 per
shot and points 5+1 per shot (might need tweaking). Each shot lasts for
1
turn.
    The reason it only lasts for the turn is that the particles are
moving
away from the canisters that launched them and after 1 turn they have
sufficiently moved apart that they are no longer providing an effective
defense. In any case, the ABDS is either up or down for the turn,
decided
turn the orders writing phase.

Please note that I am very fresh to FT (coming from the SG game) and
while I
have all three books I may be overlooking rules. I just thought that I
could
add a different perceptive to the discussion.

Chip
-----
Programming: It's not just a job - it's an indenture