I agree that FF&S would have to be fine-tuned, and it would never be able
to allow you to design a true real-world vehicle to Jane's level.
FF&S might be able to get you pretty close. I think we had a way to do
open-mount remote control, didn't we? But I always opposed those "Giraffe"
M1s from T2K because there are no stowed kills. The turret is there for a
reason: to store all those rounds. It's fine for test rigs, because they're
not going into a fight, or for a compromise "maybe it will be okay if we
only have a handful of rounds" vehicle like Stryker, but not for an MBT,
not without ballooning up hull size for all the rounds that aren't in the
turret.
Although now that I re-read your post you are talking about new Striker
rules, not just new FF&S rules, and you are correct. I tried to do a lot of
networked warfare in 2300: AD and TNE, but it was primarily space-based.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:03:11 -0400, Jeff Dougherty
<> wrote:
> What would be really cool would be the chance to design your own
> vehicles with something like FF&S. The only thing I'd want to seriously
> revisit would be the computer system rules, RPV rules, and the rules for
> robot "brains", since real technology has developed a bit differently
> than they assumed. I think you'd have a tough time doing something like
> the remote-controlled weapons mount on the Stryker using the stock
> FFcolor: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family: Helvetica;font-