Inari7 wrote:Maybe I should not have said MUST, but for a SUCCESSFUL one-on-one starship combat game
In my vocabulary, "to be successful" translates to "must". 
I'll say it again: there is no loss of detail in weapon design (or nearly so; as of this moment, there's no way to differentiate between IMP and DMG -- but that could easily change). It's just that once you've designed your weapons, and arranged them into banks, the manner in which they are represented on the ship display changes.
An example:
(SAE)
Pulse Cannons -- RNG 9 / ROF 2 / ACC 5+ / IMP 1 / DMG 2
[AB] [AC] [AC] [BD] [BD]
(New Edition)
Pulse Cannons -- ARCS [FF4][FP2][FS2] / RNG 3-6-9 / ATTACK DICE 10-7-5-4-3-2-1-1-1 (Dx2)
I think with this edition of Starmada you are changing the "Scale" of the of the game.
IMHO, you are over-estimating the amount of abstraction going on, or at least misidentifying where the abstraction is happening. (Frankly, I had expected more gnashing of teeth over the loss of the damage location roll than anything else.)
Look at what's happening: you're determining the appropriate number of dice (1), and then making a to-hit roll (2). If you score hits, and the target has shields, you must confirm these hits (3). Finally, the appropriate number of damage boxes are checked off of the target's display (4).
With SAE, you're determining the appropriate number of dice (1), and then making a to-hit roll (2). If you score hits, and the target has shields, you must confirm these hits (3). Finally, the appropriate number of damage boxes are rolled for damage location (4), and the results checked off of the target's display (5).
What are the real differences?
First, the number of attack dice is more fluid. Instead of always rolling 9 dice for a bank of three ROF-3 weapons, you might now roll anywhere from 1 to 12 dice. In other words, instead of altering the target number, you are altering the number of dice rolled. (If you want to simulate a more accurate weapon, there's a trait for that.)
Second, the option (not requirement) exists to eliminate one roll of the dice by concentrating ship defenses into armor and ECM, thus removing the shield roll.
Third, a roll of the dice (often two rolls, when you consider the weapon damage chart) to determine the effect of each specific hit has been replaced by system checks at 1/3 and 2/3 damage.
Thats what I am talking about, It does not matter mathematically it's true, but when I make a weapon that has a ROF 3 and a IMP of 2, fluff wise this means that my weapon is "Rapid firing and is armor pincering, or another weapon with a ROF 1 and DAM3 this is a big weapon that fires slower and does alot of damage. In Starmada III this might (probably not) have the same stat number.
"Starmada III"? By my count, this is at least "Starmada VIII". 
The ability to differentiate between high-ROF, low-damage weapons and low-ROF, high-damage weapons remains. I'll say it again: there is nothing you can do with the SAE weapon construction rules that won't be reflected in the new system. (Even the IMP vs. DMG differentiation will probably remain when all is said and done.)
).