Prev: Re: FTIII Next: Re: Kra'Vak house-rules


From: Oerjan Ohlson <f92-ooh@n...>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:56:24 -0500
Subject: Re: FTIII

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 wrote:

>  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
>  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
>  not have (2d6 to 0)?

Agreed. There is one more thing, though: Why should I mount anything but

3-arc weapons? The extra cost? That's nothing... (This applies to B 
batteries as well as A ones. C batteries are so small anyway...)

>  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
>  of 4. It is then very plausible for an escort have a single arc A
>  larger ships must consider the tradeoffs of a larger A. The proposed 
>  casemate changes were too mass intensive for me.

I like the casemate idea (...not surprising; I've used a similar system 
for quite a while...), but the proposed masses are too big IMO.

>  Point Systems
> To balance things out, revisions to the point cost of some systems may
> advisable.  I like the challenge of designing a ship that has multiple

> 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.

Agreed. If mass is removed, differences in basic tech levels gets very 
difficult to simulate - a powerful weapon _must_ be more massive than a 
weaker, or restricted as to who can use it - or else campaign balance 
goes out the window... However, if this other criteria is a points cost,

or a power supply need, or whatever, I don't mind - as long as it works.

(...not that that is always easy to accomplish...)

> Rear Arc Fire
> I like the idea of weapons firing in the rear arc.  Most (if not all)
> universes (SW, ST, B5) all have rear arc fire.  I understand how the 
> 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, 
> design is generic like STARFIRE.

Yep. With effective restrictions - mass- or cost-wise, or in some other
way - as to what weapons can fire into which arc, you can easily allow
fire into the rear arc. Allowing all your weapons to fire into all four
arcs, however, makes the tactics extremely dull - you make sure you stay
at the optimum range, and that becomes easy (or at least far easier)
you don't have to mind your own facing. As long as I have to choose
between firepower and arc coverage (...or, in other words, between
firepower and mobility) I'll have to mind tactics - or at least I have
respond to the tactics of my enemies.

Many of these arc-restrictions depend on your background, though; in the

Renegade Legion or Honor Harrington universes, _all_ weapons are 
single-arc; B5 ships have multi-arc weapons, but the heaviest ones seem 
to be directed roughly along the main hull axis, and so on. 


Oerjan Ohlson

"Father, what is wrong?"
"My shoes are too tight. But it does not matter, because
 I have forgotten how to dance."
- Londo Mollari

Prev: Re: FTIII Next: Re: Kra'Vak house-rules