RE: The Problem with EW

>***
>This is probably tactically correct, but the heart of my orginal post
was
>not how effective ECM could be, but that it should have a flaw,
otherwise
>it
>becomes the 'holy grail'. All designs are therefore incomplete without
an
>ECM system. So where does that leave all the published designs?
>***

replying to above The_Beast wrote;

>Once again, speaking without fully thinking out the implications, may I
>suggest that the optional EW rules be written such that the current
designs
>have SOME ECM intrinsically?

I think this would be the easiest to implement. There is an understated
power allocation system inherent in the FT system where ships are able
to
divert power from guns and manouvre drive and put it to FTL drive.
Surely,
running silent, at least, would consist of not assigning power to any
system, and thereby gaining some advantages of increased effective range
to
potential firers, along lines that have previously been suggested.

Similarly, diverting the power from the guns etc, and putting it through
the
sensors would enable active effects. One such ability might be to
illuminate
an enemy ship to make it easier to target. Another such ability might
along
the lines of an SFB wild weasel, that attracts salvo missiles within 6".
This may be result in a better interpretation of the 'banzai jammer' as
a
escort vessel lights itself up (the crew rushing to life-boats) and
permit
smarter missile seeker rules (eg; based on target size, with wild
weasels
looking larger). 

For other functions; might it be possible to jam fighters, or torpedoes,
or
shields, or ADFC?

This way the published designs stand. The EW actions become additional
options open to the spaceships. Possibly becoming more useful as the
ship is
shot up, and becomes concerned with its personal survival. 

Andrew Kelman