Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

>On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Chad Taylor wrote:

>I would be very careful with the design of this system.  At the moment
it
>seems that it is a simple matter to decide what mass of ship is the
most
>effective in a given size class.  This would effectively give us one
size
>class and I am concerned that one mass would stand out (if even only
>slightly) as the best of all the others.  

The whole problem with the original system seems to be precisely that:
some
players maximise their ships to use the biggest available hull size in
the
class group, and this is where the problems occur (ie: biggest Escort is
better than smallest Cruiser etc.). Losing the distinction would, I
believe, actually help to keep things much more balanced.
>
>I rather like the current system of having the mass of ships broken up
>into various hull sizes.  I would like to see a few more than the three
we
>have, my preference being at about five-six or so.  It allows the idea
of
>each size class having something that "it" is a little better at doing
>than the rest.  Besides, having the given names for each hull size was
>great for description purposes (standard names = standard reference).
>
The names will still be there, and they'll still refer to the same mass
groups - they will all just use the same construction formulae. I think
increasing the number of groupings would simply make the original
problem
of the break points far worse...
> 
>> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play
with in
>> the design (probably = to total mass rather than 50%), but out of
this you
>> will have to use mass for drives and other bits that are currently
assumed
>> to be part of the "other 50%" of the ship mass. The thrust rating
will
>> depend on the % of the ship that you devote to the drives -
preliminary
>> ideas are for 5% ship mass per thrust factor. FTL drive will use 10%
of
>> ship mass. This means you can build a ship with very high thrust if
you
>> wish, at the cost of having very little weapons space - or a very
"slow"
>> one bristling with guns.....
>> (OK, I know this will change the ship designs considerably, but then
so
>> will a simple change like making A batts cost 4 mass....)
>> 
>
>The "% ship mass per thrust factor" kind of scares me away.  I would
>really rather not make such calculations in order to design
>ships.  I'm willing (grudgingly), but I have a number of friend who
>aren't.  They want a simple system or won't consider playing (actually,
>they want fleet books to choose ships from).  Just the same, if you
kept
>the hull size/class idea you could say that each thrust costs 1 per
size
>class or some such.  Easy calculation, you stay with mass only, and it
>allows you to buy thrust.  

Fair comment, but the fleet book and standard ship designs WILL be there
for players who don't want to design their own. We're only talking of a
VERY simple calculation, say 5% of mass per thrust factor, rounded UP to
nearest whole mass - eg: thrust 2 takes 10% of ship's total mass, thrust
4
takes 20% and so on. So a mass 40 ship with thrust 6 uses 30% or 12 mass
for drives; the same drives for a mass 36 hull take 10.8, rounded up to
11.
I don't think this is too much of a problem for the average gamer, who
is
pretty used to basic percentages anyway.

>I've got reservations about going to an all mass system myself.  I
rather
>like having points as a balance also.	This of course all came out
earlier
>during the original debate of mass v points.  Allowing all of the mass
to
>be used for systems makes me feel a little better about the idea, but
I'm
>not sure how much.  

There is no reason why we won't keep the points as well, but they may be
more closely tied to the mass that in FTII so that players who prefer to
balance games on mass alone won't find things too far out of kilter.
>

>
>I really like the idea of firing to the rear arc when you use no
thrust.
>Simple rules change and easy to explain.  I'll probably suggest this as
a
>"house rule" to my group tonight.  Can't think of a much better
>endorsement.

Let me know how it works out!

>
>You make a very good point about the hexagonal model bases (I have more
>than one fleet of SFB ships that I use with Full Thrust) and I think
that
>taking it into consideration is a great idea.	I would suggest though
that
>you keep it simple.  Just buy arcs in 60 degrees.  Having different arc
>widths will only cause confusion and give us ship design preferences. 
I
>always prefer to see rules that are consistent on such things (all arcs
>are X).  If you design side arcs to be wider and cost the same then
broad
>side ships become a better design.  If you tried to keep balance by
>saying side arcs cost twice as much (being twice as wide and there for
>twice as effective) then why not just allow people to buy the arcs in
the
>grades they want?  I would much prefer the decision of building large
side
>arcs to be mine.

Interesting idea - allowing six 60 degree arcs would also solve the
question of people wanting 180 degree forward fire; the biggest problem
would be how to depict the arcs on some of the system icons, but I think
we
could get round that.
> 

 Jon T. (GZG).