Re: FTIII

 
 Time for my 2 cents worth on FT and its future.
 
 A, B, C Beam Battery Balance
 The Cs got better with anti-fighter capability from MT
 Why should I mount 3 B batteries when for the same mass and less cost I

 could mount 2 A batteries with equal short range power (6d6), more 
 midrange power (4d6 to 3d6), and a long range capability that the B
does 
 not have (2d6 to 0)?
 The best solution I have seen is  Bs and Cs stay the same, the mass of
a 
 single arc A battery stays at 3 but multiple arc A batteries have a
mass 
 of 4.	It is then very plausible for an escort have a single arc A
while 
 larger ships must consider the tradeoffs of a larger A. The proposed 
 casemate changes were too mass intensive for me.
 
 Point Systems
To balance things out, revisions to the point cost of some systems may
be 
advisable.  I like the challenge of designing a ship that has multiple
criteria 
the must be met, i.e. point cost and mass.  I don't think mass alone can
do it, 
especially if campaign rules are added.

Core Rules Rewrite
I don't think FT is broken.  It could be tuned up in some areas.  Change
isn't 
always good and neither is it always bad.  I don't think Jon and GZG
will scrap 
everything and start over.  I would have to see the changes to make up
my mind. 
Change from d6 to FMA, I don't see a huge need to do this but presented 
correctly, it could work.  I would like to see more systems and races,
many good
examples have been on this list.  Like in MT, the new systems would be
optional 
but should be balances so they could be dropped in if needed.

Campaign Rules and Fleet Books
I'll get them whenever they show up.  I want to see a full fleet of
designs 
based on the same philosophy.  The NSL page is a good example of a fleet
of 
ships all designed to integrate with each other following specific
battle 
doctrine

Rear Arc Fire
I like the idea of weapons firing in the rear arc.  Most (if not all)
popular 
universes (SW, ST, B5) all have rear arc fire.	I understand how the
prohibition
of rear arc fire changes tactics and how satisfying it is to be in the
rear arc 
of a capital ship and pound away, BUT with most beam batteries 3 arc,
ship 
design is generic like STARFIRE. I allow rear arc fire for beam
batteries, 
railguns and pulse torps, but at reduced levels, C bats fire only as 
anti-fighter, B as a C, A as a B, AA as a A, pulse torp and railguns at
-1 to 
hit and damage.  C bats and B bats can be 4 arc, A bats only up to 3
arc.  This 
makes the design of ships more challenging and related to tactics. 
Escorts 
don't have the space to waste in the rear arc.	Capital ships have to
reduce 
some of their forward firepower to get some coverage in the rear arc,
thus they 
are a little less dangerous head on.  Do I try and cover the rear arc
with an A,
and then not have it cover the front?  If I have 2 A bats, are they FPA
FSA for 
weak side coverage and full front coverage or PFS PAS for broadsides but
weaker 
forward coverage?  Racial and empire preferences would come into play,
full 
frontal attack or battle lines as in the age of sail.

Whew! 8-]  Those are my thoughts, fire away.

Dean Gundberg
dgundberg@bcbsnd.com

'If you have to put your 2 cents in but it is only a penny for your
thoughts, 
Hey! Someone is making a cent there!'  Comedian Steven Wright