PDS/ADFC systems

6 posts ยท May 20 2001 to May 21 2001

From: Izenberg, Noam <Noam.Izenberg@j...>

Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 13:30:16 -0400

Subject: Re: PDS/ADFC systems

> BIF wrote:

> I was thinking about the PSB for the PDS systems, and the fact that

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,

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

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

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.

From: Bif Smith <bif@b...>

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 07:53:08 +0100

Subject: Re: PDS/ADFC systems

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:03:17 -0400

Subject: 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
---

[quoted original message omitted]

From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@y...>

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 08:12:44 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: RE: Re: PDS/ADFC systems

I was thinking about fleet book 3 and wondering about ADFC since you're
talking about it now.

My ships all have 1-6 PDSs depending on class, and
all but the destroyers have ADFC. This means I kind of distribute a PDS ship
over the entire fleet. I wonder if there should be some kind of Aegis ship
system in FB3 which ties all the ADFC's together giving the network some
advantage like slightly increased range, better chance to hit, or something
like that?

The current rules work ok for me though. Having
16 or so PDSs distributed over 5-6 ships with
lots of ADFCs just about feels like that anyway. If the opponent is bringing
lots of fighters, I sometimes add a carrier myself with at least half
interceptors. Sorry if I've gone a little off topic.

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 12:01:06 -0400

Subject: RE: RE: Re: PDS/ADFC systems

> I wonder if there should be some kind of Aegis ship

I'd think the advantage of centralized PDS control would be that you'd be able
to carry over "wasted" kills to other targets which are no more difficult to
hit than the original target.

From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@y...>

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:30:35 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: RE: RE: Re: PDS/ADFC systems

That could really take a bite out of MT missiles.

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> >I wonder if there should be some kind of Aegis ship