FC and stealth was: Four years without thrust

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

I like the ECM vs FC scheme for exactly this reason: it is all about
priorities in combat, though the
mechanic would sorely press the 'old-school' designs
that are currently canon if for no other reason than
the threat of ECM/stealth didn't exist at the time of
their design. War Technology marches on, i guess....

Where the scheme would need some clarity built in is the order in which combat
would take place. We roll initiative as a custom in our games, but since WE
play with simultaneous damage it is more of a formality than a need.
> You could also introduce various qualitiy levels for

I can see extending different levels of stealth or signal corruption (ECM) to
be counteracted with FC, but the idea of adding new levels of FC starts to
depart from the simple nature of FT in general, IMO. ymmv.

> KHR wrote:

> >A substantial problem with the FC-as-anti-ECM mechanic is that it

If you have to concentrate several fire controls on one target and/or
for one weapon, *ships with only a single operational fire control can't fire
at all*."

Which, as Roger says, means that the mechanic makes multiple FCSs vastly

more valuable than they are now.

Regards,

[quoted original message omitted]

> KHR wrote:

> >>After all, if you have to concentrate several firecontrols on one

Correct.

> On the other hand, as far as I understood, the suggestion was to reduce

Those times these two ECM variants have been discussed previously, they were
completely separate proposals.

> so I suppose that a single FCS would allow you to fire at the shorter

Which makes extra FCS a very cheap way of countering enemy ECM, which in

turn means that the *ECM* needs to be very cheap to be worthwhile since the
only ships that'd be affected by it otherwise are the Fleet Book DDs and

smaller. (Custom designs would most likely have multiple FCSs even on small
ships.)

Regards,