RE: Re: PDS/ADFC systems

ADFC as presented is somewhat tough to generate PSB for.

If it is a better sensor package tied to the PDS, then why can't the
PDS fire at any ship in the maximum 12mu range?

If it is a reception antena and sophisticated computer to allow the
PDS to use the PDS scans of the frineldy ship, then all friendly ships
must be broadcasting the PDS sensor information. This would tend to 
make the ships easier to hit. Of course it could be a tight beam 
link to all ships within 6mu, reducing the downside.

Perhaps a WOTW we could discuss would be an AD Net. Instead of a ship
with an ADFC, each ship in the fleet would carry a node for the AD Net.
The node would be mass 1 and cost 4 (as normal FCS). But would allow 
it to link PDS as ADFC with all other ships within 6mu that have an
AD Net node? Less effecient than a single ship with ADFC in the middle
of a group of ships it is covering, but more effecient than giving 
every ship ADFC.

---
Brian Bell
bbell1@insight.rr.com
http://www.ftsr.org
---

----- Original Message --------
> > 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. 
> 

Yes, but the ADFC is a set item, not dependent on the number of PDS the
ship 
mounts. 

> >...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 
> 

I`m not after defining the rule, it`s just if you have a idea how the
system 
works, you can think up interesting systems based on that technology.
The 
bit about ADFC raised a idea for a "flag bridge" ship in a task force,
that 
instead of every ship requiring a ADFC, the flag bridge could link the
PDS 
nets of all the ships in it`s squadren togetter as long as it`s
operational. 

Just some ideas from my crazy mind. 

BIF 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at