Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, David Brewer wrote:
> it around a bit. Maybe I'll post it straight to GZG later if no
> one can convince me it's horribly flawed.

does jon really read this stuff? just wondering if he's ever given any
indication (he must be awfully busy, after all)...

> I'm not, however, too chuffed with "casemates" and "turrets".
> Call me a maximizer, or whatever, but I'm perfectly comfortable
> with beam weapons being 3-arc weapons first, last and always.
> There are plenty of single-arc weapons in FT to oblige players
> to maneuver to bring them to bear: submunitions, railguns,
> torps, AA's, needles etc.

I dislike the idea of batteries being 3 arc on small ships. I LIKE the
idea of a tiny vehicle, just barely large enough to hold its weapon,
being
restricted by mass to have a 1 arc fire arc. nowadays there is no reason
to do that....

>
> The "A-battery problem" is solvable in a mass-driven system by
> bumping it up to 4 mass.
>

I'd say 5 or 6, but I agree...

> What I am primarily suggesting is that points be retained, but
> only as a simple multiple of the ship's mass.
>

<point system snipped>

to be honest, I don't see how that is different from the present point
system except symantically (spelling?)...

Brian Lojeck
lojeck@mizar.usc.edu

"This is the .sig that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends.
Some people started reading it, not knowing what it was; but now that
they've
been reading it, they notice it because... This is the .sig that never
ends..."