Hey Anthony.
That's almost correct: the lower energy rating *for a given volume* but the area used by the array is identical. As a result high ROF weapons are getting specifically "thicker" instead of just "bigger". With X-Ray lasers (the space weapon of choice) the volume used for the weapon installation is trivial compared to the volume of powerplant required to run the weapon, so it makes sense to *massively* overdesign the focal arrays, since the increase in cost, mass and volume is very minor, and just nore that they normally have a ROF of (10,50,100 whatever) with a MAX ROF of something insane (I pity the poor folks who are trying to storm a grounded ship with one of these on board)
Unfortunately 2 hits is not 20 hits (or more)
If my volume of fire covers the target area with a target hit every 2 meters, instead of a spread every 10 meters, I should (if the target is entirely contained within the salvo) score 25 x as many hits. (25 hits for every 100 square meters of target area instead of 1 hit per 100 square meters of target area)
The "exceptional success" just doesn't do this.
Or put another way, why is is that if I put 25 lasers with a ROF of 10 on a ship, they score significantly more hits than 1 laser with a ROF of 250? The salvo density is identical, the power input is identical, and chances are that the MFD that is allocating the fire is the same system, being controlled by the same (single) gunner. The ONLY difference is that I have some additional "overhead" in adding weapons mounts.
If I am using X-Ray lasers, I can cram all 25 focal arrays into the same turret mount anyway, so their "dispersion" on my starship hull is less than 3m.
This is a rule mechanics problem.
That said, the rest of the system is well integrated, and FF&S is one of the better archietectures that I have seen in terms of reflecting the "real world" and the underlying physics therin.
Scott Martin