Battery sizes, was Re: FT3 Revision, not Re-write
From: Oerjan Ohlson <f92-ooh@n...>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:34:19 -0500
Subject: Battery sizes, was Re: FT3 Revision, not Re-write
On 11 Dec 1996, Brian Bell wrote:
> 2) Beam weapons. They need to be spread out more on a tonnage or cost
> 2a) One way would be to increase tonnage for arcs.
> C 1 ton turret
> B 2 ton casement
> B 3 ton turret
> A 4 ton casement
> A 6 ton turret (I feel that 8 tons is too expensive)
Hm. I'd say that 2 B batteries will win over one A battery if they
are the same mass; but it might be my poor tactics that don't allow me
keep the range open... and one turreted B will probably beat one
as it will be able to stay in a blind arc (this I'm able to
> 2b) Another option (prefered by me because no ship re-design would
> is to make the classes just add range but not damage potential. Either
> ranges 1d6 damage. Or all class Beams 3d6 at 12", and A&B 2d6 at 24".
> make the cost/tonage progression more in line with the weapon
If all beams cause the same amount of damage at close range, C batteries
will be The Killer Weapon. cf the discussion of a Mauler weapon some
while back - 9d6 damage at short range, no long range, mass 3 - this
would be the same as C beams in your proposal. BTW, I have nothing at
"Father, what is wrong?"
"My shoes are too tight. But it does not matter, because
I have forgotten how to dance."
- Londo Mollari