Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

>NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
>I'm not giving rules and numbers here, because they haven't been
written
yet :).
>This is simply the rough outline of the new system:
>
>1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between
Escorts,
>Cruisers and Capitals, and have a single "sliding scale" of ship
designs
>from smallest to largest; this will also mean that Superships cease to
need
>special rules - you can build something as big as you like under the
basic
>system. (Still figuring on how to best do the damage track and
threshold
>points - have been watching the last few days' discussions with
>interest...)

Whooohoo!!  A new design system!  I'm all for this.  Throw in a couple
new
gadgets and gizmos and I'll be happy.  Maybe you could redefine the
screens/armor rules a bit, too (I have a supership for a mini-campaign
I'm
working on now that uses both, and the two systems seem to have a tough
time
working together).  Of course, this means I'll have to reprogram the
spreadsheet on my PDA to adapt to the new system...

>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....)

I like this idea, but (like a lot of the other people on this list) I'd
like
to see some sort of additional penalty come into play on very large
ships; I
know I'd gladly sacrifice 40% of my ship's mass to get thrust 8 on a 200
mass ship-- What the heck, I'm already in for 50% for thrust 3 under the
current rules. 

>3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
small
>turret); B = 2, plus 1 per additional fire arc over first; A = 4 plus 2
per
>additional fire arc over first. The numbers may not be perfect (as I'm
sure
>all the armchair mathematicians will soon tell me:)) but I think
they'll go
>a long way to fixing the age-old problem.

I would limit the maximum number of arcs a weapon can cover to 3,
INCLUDING
the C batteries.  It presents more considerations when designing a ship,
since you have to determine which arc you think you'll need the least.

>4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but ONLY
in
>a turn in which the ship uses no thrust from its main drive... should
>change tactics a little and possibly help to avoid the "plughole"
effect of
>all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!

This is Ok, but I like the idea of no rear arc restrictions better
(there's
just too many examples of it in the source material I'm trying to
simulate).
The rules "No rear arc limits" and "maximum of 3 firing arcs per weapon"
acutally complement one another quite nicely.  Maybe the idea to limit
rear-arc fire could be an optional rule?

>5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
>increased fighter move distances (24" or 36"?) and making the revised
turn
>sequence from MT a standard basic rule (ie: fighters move after order
>writing, but before ships move, so you have to anticipate the enemy's
>move). 

AAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!! Just trying to contemplate this gives me a brain
embolisim, Jon.   Please, please, please, I beg of you, DON'T DO THIS!! 
How
many times did you see a Star Destroyer outmanuver Rebel fighters, or,
for
that matter, a Japanese Carrier give the slip to torpedo bombers in the
South Pacific DURING BATTLE?  If you must change the fighter rules, do
as I
and countless others on this list have suggested: give the Fighters a
thrust
of 12, move them as normal ships, but don't require them to write their
courses beforehand and let them move AFTER everyone else does.	This
more
accurately simulates fighters as reactive elements, and fixes the
problem of
ships outrunning fighters.  I realize that fighters are still very
deadly
(more so, under these rules), so I would recommend either a) producing
some
more cheap anti-fighter weapons, or b) beefing up the abilities of
PDAF's
and C-bats operating in PDAF mode (perhaps let them target ANY fighter
or
missile in their sphere of influence, as per ADAF rules, or letting
every
*DAF hit take out 1D6/2 Fighters?).


>6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to fore/aft
>arcs of 60 degrees each and side arcs of 120 degrees - this brings the
arcs
>in line with the 12 course directions, and makes fire arcs easy to
judge
>from a hexagonal model base (1 base side = 60 degrees, 2 = 120). Do you
>think this will make a great deal of difference to the game, other than
>(perhaps) making broadside mounts a little more acctractive?
>

Can't say I like this one too much either, Jon, although I suspect that
a
great deal of my hesitancy on this may be related to the fact that I
FINALLY
got the Arcs to work properly on my FT program :).  I say leave the arcs
as
is, or (and I can hear the screams of "Overcomplication" now) do as
someone
previously suggested and come up with another 4 arcs which are shifted
45
degrees from original ones.  I like the second option, because it adds
an
extra level of contemplation during the design phase, as well as a host
of
new tactical considerations on the battlefield, but I do see where this
could be an awfully big monkeywrench to throw into the mix.  

   
>So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
reactions -
>either to the list or direct email (at this stage, please don't send
loads
>of alternative rules - I'd appreciate just reaction to the above, so I
can
>gauge feelings on it.)
>
>Many thanks!
>
>Jon T. (GZG).
>
Well, that's my $00.04 (the price goes up when I have to ship overseas).
Thanks again for a fantastic game, Jon.

Take care,

Tre