Personal thoughts; some of this has likely been said (and/or opposed) by others earlier, apologies for that.
Force Disparity Combat Bonus: seems somewhat gamey (in the sense of sacrificing verisimilitude for the sake of balanced gameplay) but this is offset somewhat by the notion of it 'representing the smaller force having an easier time maneuvering and targetting.' (Am still sure there will be long arguments about how 'realistic' that is in space, involving infinite room versus effective engagement distances and the like.) I do feel it would have been better as a nerf to the bigger fleet than as a buff to the smaller one; better even than that, if the combat mechanics themselves were reworked such that this *actually* happened in the resolution itself (ie. ships missing their firing opportunity due to being 'screened' by friendlies, maybe some friendly fire happening etc.) so the FDCB feels more like an emergent result than a coded mechanic. (This is, perhaps not coincidentally, how I take on doomstacks in Conquest of Elysium 4.) But that would almost certainly require a complete rebuild, meaning likely far more work than the benefits would justify.
Ship disengagement: likely to make wars (even more) grindy, but this is inevitable in anything that aims to reduce the the decisiveness of a single battle and is potentially offset by making the individual battles themselves run a bit quicker. Am fine with this.
Regarding this phrase: "and the FTL changes that makes it so it's harder to cover your entire empire with a single fleet" - I feel this is going to be more than offset by how the introduction of chokepoints & the buffing of static defenses reduces the amount of empire you have to actually cover - unless you're faced with a fleet capable of busting through the fortified points, but such a fleet is likely to require a doomstack to answer it anyway. Overall, I'm not convinced the FTL changes aren't just treading water on this facet of the game - though in conjunction with the other changes coming with it that water is likely to be quite muddy. (Ie. it will be difficult to be certain what is actually having an affect on the use of doomstacks and what is just coming along for the ride.)
Overall, I still feel as though none of this *requires* the FTL changes (beyond reducing the overhead in order to implement them) but I am very glad not to see any of the things I speculated on that
would have explicitly required the FTL changes.
Missiles, and specifically 'damage reduces speed and combat ability':
In addition to giving missiles a strategic purpose beyond just the 'rock/paper/scissors' game of weapons vs defenses, this seems (at least on paper) like it will help to address one of the issues behind the obsolescence of corvettes. Moreover, it feels 'right,' in the sense that damaged ships *should* have reduced capabilities.
Computers: The others are obvious, but I'm curious to see what the practical difference between swarm and picket will be. I'm guessing Swarm is more like a 'charge, fire while passing and circle back for another charge' kind of thing (ideal for fast ships with a high alpha strike) while picket is more "move to and hold at brawling range" (better for short range, 'tanky' ships hoping to screen.)
Reactors: I liked the fiddly exercise myself so I'm a bit sad to see it go
"All empires start with all basic weapons in Cherryh. More on this next DD."
Not surprised, and while I'm still not convinced that the FTL changes were as necessary as advertised, this one
does seem mandated by some of the other changes. Still, it's another disappointing change for me and If I was a cynic I'd expect either planet preference or traits to be next on the cutting block.
