FB designs & fighters

From: GBailey@aol.com

>
> stiltman is correct, the FB1 designs are generally bad.

Can't say I agree.
1) The FB fleets balance decently against each other. In the context of 
the "provided" universe of FT, they work just fine.
2) For gamers who like evolved doctrine, the FB backstory is one very 
nice take on things and provides one (of an infinity) way things might 
progress. Not being a historical buff, I don;t know if or how combat 
eras see-sawed between "generalist" and "specialist" doctrines, but it 
is not implausible that future history events would favor one path over 
another.
3) As Indy said, The FB ships were never meant to be min-maxed or 
necessarily to face up to min-maxed ships. If "bad" = "not min-maxed" 
then We Bad, We know it, Jam on.

> A few modifications, like putting an ADFC on the large
> ships instead of having to have some piddly escort
> will do a lot in slowing down massive fighter attacks.

Agreed, given the way fighters and PDS work now, this is one of the few 
effective ways to modify FB1 ships to fight custom jobs heavy on the 
fighters. Hence the quest for a solution.

> The downside is that then single squadron attacks
> are worthless.

Also agreed. The solution should find away to require neither of these 
things.

> It seems people want to change the rules just
> because of the current ship designs.

Actually we want to make the rules better and more consistent without 
invalidating current designs. Big difference.

> How about making one minor change: no ADFC is
> required to "share" PDS duty between ships?
> Then make the ADFC do something else, like
> be an improved PDS (+1) but not able to have an
> anti-ship role (just like an interceptor group)?
> And/or it allows class-1 type weapons to help out
> nearby ships against fighters and missiles?
> Or it can fire at every fighter/missile within range,
> not just one?

One of these is close to what the test list is... well, testing. The 
others are both interesting in their own right. Perhaps some more 
testing is in order.

Re: B Lin's new systems:

First, if a main goal of the exercise is keeping current FB designs 
legal and usable, then new systems should be avoided if possible. But 
that said:
	
> Idea #1: Super ADAF/PDS
> Mass 6, can attack any single fighter group within 6" of the carrying 
> ship, kills 1-6 fighters.

A mass 6 reusable scattergun: Very mass intensive, and therefore at 
least as easy to overwhelm with fighter piles as normal PDS.

> Idea #2: Anti-fighter SM's
> Mass 1 (Mass 2 for single shot packs), fired from Launchers or packs, 
> each AF-SM has a range of 12" kills 1-6 fighters.

See the WDA also for AFHAWKS

> Idea #3: Mines/passive deterrent field
> Mass 1 per 1x6 unit field - a field of mines or ball bearings that are

> dropped behind the moving ship.  Larger ships have enough hull and 
> armor to ignore, but fighters flying through take 1-6 casualties.

Sounds too directional (Aft arc only) and otherwise could be the PSB for

normal PDS (accelerated ball bearings). Applies to all fighter groups, 
so scales effectively with # fighters.

> Idea #4: Thermo-nuclear Point Defense
> Mass 1, basically dumping a large fusion bomb out the hatch and 
> detonating it, does 2d6 damage to the ship and 1d6 to every target 
> within 6". (The ultimate Q-ship weapon against fighters)

Similar to defensive use of Plasma Bolts. This _would_ scale with number

of fighter groups. Could easily pave the way for suicide ships. Wade 
into the middle of a squadron packing a dozen of these bombs and wipe it

out - if they are to be anti-fighter, they have to blow up before 
fighters or ships get to fire.

> Idea #5: "Death-Blossom" Ultra PDS
> Mass 1 per die, single shot expendable system, only one per ship.  
> Kills 1 die of fighters per mass, max range 6". Massed arrays of short

> range missiles and single shot lasers that fire in all directions.

That's like 'N' scatterguns tied together. Weaker than scatterguns if 
there's no anti-ship capability and if all dice must be fired at once.

Horrible Gaze'n Apeman	 (Noam Raphael Izenberg - yes, I'm lookin' at