OK, having read the discussion so far, here's my thoughts -
1. Movement is a little complex, and yes, simplification would be useful. However, the biggest part of that is making small ships and large ships behave differently,; One of the critiques of many space combat games is "dogfighting Battleships" events where the rules allow capitals to race around like fighters. It wouldn't suit the milieu to have this happen in DW, though perhaps it
might in FSA. the Fleet Action single template was one of the worse parts of that version, IMHO, but I suppose as a "light" version of the game it was useful.
2. "Analysis Paralysis" seem to be a buzzword around here. I've often heard it used to explain why some players have difficulties with some rules. Well, maybe. . . It sometime strikes me as a justification for making "dumbed-down" rules as well. Sure, an overly complex set of choices slows down the games, but we have the danger of moving more and more towards the "GW Approved Movement Book" approach to games, and if that happens, we might as well be playing chess.
3. MAR and Weapon System Limits. Taking these in reverse order, weapons limitations are possibly a good idea, however it has to be handled with caution; My own experience in game design ( I was a participant in the revamp of Full Thrust into the Fleet Book version
) showed that while many players would rather have more weapons on a craft for tactical flexibility rather than one or two heavy weapons, they will then get bogged down in "analysis paralysis" when actually
playing so it's a balance issue. FT manages the problem with the Mass-based design system and that does work well, though I've seen some Munchkins do their
level best to break it and create Uberships; Still, I support the idea of a weapons limit based on size in principle, perhaps by combining multiple weapons into batteries rather than as single weapons, such as all the guns in one arc being treated as a unit for firing purposes using one dice pool. MARs however are a different story;
Definite limits as to the number and type of MARs for size classes is an excellent idea.
4. Activation. All move then alternate firing sounds very like FT and that
might explain why I'm liking the idea
As for the sequence of activation within each fleet, perhaps something like this might be workable -
a) Large Ships fire first.
b) Intact Squadrons fire.
c) Medium ships fire.
d) Small ships fire.
e) Damaged/Broken Squadrons fire last.
The reasoning here is fairly sensible; Large ships will have better morale and would be expected to have an advantage. Squadrons still in coherent order would be expected to be next in line to fire, then Medium sized vessels operating on their own would be slightly less likely to have high enough morale to do so. Small ships operating solo would be quicker off the mark than damaged and out of order units or groups of ships which are in disarray from damages and losses, so would fire ahead of them. It takes some choice away from the player as damage increases among the fleet, and makes escorts more interesting - If the larger ships have hit effectively, the smaller vessels have a chance of striking a telling blow of their own on a wounded opponent.
I agree with RuleBritannia that radical changes probably are not going to bring many players back into the fold, but minor
tweaks that re-tune the game might be appreciated.
