Re: PDS/ADFC systems

BIF wrote:

>I was thinking about the PSB for the PDS systems, and the fact that
these 
>systems would be under computer control with minimal human supervision. 

Why? Sophisticated computer/electronic aid may merely augment the human
fire/no fire decision. Or the system itself is shotgun like - you don't
need
so much accuracy only a computer could fire it. Or its something even
more
bizarre - you patch gremembers into a grav sensor grid directly and they
"feel" where to shoot.

>My thinking is due to the shear speeds involved in space ship terms,
any 
>human	would be hoplesly outclassed and too slow to be used to
intercept 
>incoming  missiles or fighters, especially as these SMALL vesells will 
> be dodging to avoid the PDS at the same time.

Remember the "standard" turn lasts anywhere from 5-20 minutes. How fast
does
reaction time have to be if the turn really condenses the aggregate of
many
feints and attacks?

> Also, how do you think the ADFCons work? My 
> thinking is the ADFC works as a high rate computer comunications
system 
>that links the ships together, using the targetted (or the non-ADFC 
>ships) sensors to provide a single sensor image to work from. 

Could also simply be a focusing aid for small targets attacking other
ships.
Perhaps ships w/o ADFC can't point weak PDS up to 6" away vs. things not
attacking their own ship.

>...This could be a reasonable	explination due to the fact that a ship 
>cannot attack any missile or fighter 
>within 6 MU, only one that is actually attacking your ship. This would 
>also explain why I see ADFC tying the ship with the ADFC into the
>sensors
of the targetted ship. 

It _could_ be reasonable. But there are other ways of thinking about it
that
require humans-in-the-loop, or other concepts that make a solely
PSB-based
or -justified rule difficult or impossible to apply. 

I think of PDS attacks this way. Missiles and fighters may engage a
target
that's 6" waya, but all the actual firing etc takes place within 1"
(more
like within 0.1"). To me its implausible at best to expect fighters to
be
effective at ranges of over 1000 km (one of the most standard
definitions
for an MU. So a ship using PDS vs. things attacking it are going for the
bona-fide shrotest range possible.
ADFC enables you to focus your arages against targets much farther away,
possibly in conjunction with the target ships' own PDS net. While the
target's fire goes vs. the terminal or attack runs, the ADFC support
goes as
they set up or regroup slightly furhter out. 

But again, that's only one way of thinking about it, which has its own
strengths and flaws. The PSB is what gives the game a distinct flavor,
but
in a game like FT, it shouldn't define the rules. IMO.

Noam