Prev: RE: Campaign rules? Next: Why big ships are too good...

Re: Campaign rules?

From: Chad Taylor <ct454792@o...>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:45:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Campaign rules?

On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Hal Carmer wrote:

> Hello Guys,
>   As a first rule for construction times, what do you all think about
> using the square root of the mass as time in months for construction
> Thus a 100 mass unit would take 10 months to make, while a 4 mass unit
> would take 2 months to make.	Time taken is considered to be wartime
> construction times where the shipyard is taking 7 days a week to make.

If it works for you, fine.  I think you are allowing too fast of capital
ship construction however.  I suggest that rather than coming up with a
formula system you instead just guestimate it.	Decide arbitrarily how
much time you want escorts/cruisers/capitals to take in construction and
then just think up a reason to justify it.  Consider how long (# of
campaign turns) the campaign will last, how fast you want fleets to be
able to grow, and how quickly you want a race to be able to recover from
bad battle result (keeping in mind its homeworld could be pressed).
Doesn't have to be mathematically reasonable, only give the results you
want.  After all, you can justify anything with a little imagination.

>   Comments?  Oh, one more thing.  In private email, there has arrived
> situation where one of us thinks you need one Fire Control per needle
> absolute, and another thinks you need one Fire Control to control a
> of Needle Beams - assuming they are firing at the same "targeted
> Could someone point out the correct path to follow in this instance?

You need one Fire Con per target, the second case.  The best example is
given on page  18 of Full Thrust, in the last half of the third
paragraph under 'NEEDLE BEAMS:'

> Hal

Chad Taylor

Prev: RE: Campaign rules? Next: Why big ships are too good...