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

> I see it quite the other way round. A small ship can give its single
> weapon an all-round coverage; it's these bloody great "Star
> Destroyers" with their massive superstructures that should mandate
> limited-arcs.

now we've reached the question of is full thrust a game of space combat
or
a "wet-navy" game where the boats have wings? (ie. if it were space
combat, ships would only really have 2 fire arcs since they could just
roll about their centerline to shoot to port with their starboard weapon
array)

I tend to think of a batteries as guns so huge that you would need to
build a cruiser carrying one as an engine and a cockpit tied to the gun
itself, while a carrier should be big enough to have it's torpedo
launcher
on a turret (imho)

> > to be honest, I don't see how that is different from the present
point
> > system except symantically (spelling?)...
>
> Semantics = substance. You mean "syntactically". Syntax = style.

(goes to dictionary) oh yeah... sorry...

> The idea is to be sufficiently similar... but helpfully simpler.

I just think it was too similar. if it gives the exact same results, why
not use the same system?