Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

At 09:58 AM 2/22/97 +0000, you wrote:
>NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION 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...)

	Think this is a wonderful idea. All that's needed are some
indicators of the sizes of specific ship classes from the different
nation-states of the Full Thrust universe to gauge. The standard NAC
cruiser
should be a different size than the standard ESU cruiser anyway...

>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....)

	Also love this idea. However, I really like the idea of fast
small
ships outmaneuvering the big lumbering hulks. I would really hate to
lose that.

>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.

	Prefer 1 Mass for a C-bat, three arcs fire. 1 Mass for a B-bat,
1
arc fire and 2 mass for three arcs fire. 2 Mass for an A-bat, 1 arc fire
and
add 1 mass for each additional arc of fire. Pulse torpedoes should
either be
reduced to 4 mass or be improved in some way.

>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!

	I think the FTII rule against rear-arc fire should be continued.
However, an optional rule to permit rear-arc fire to simulate Star
Trek/Star
Wars/etc. should be included.

>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). 

	Much prefer the proposed idea of making fighters move like small
ships; this will simplify things and prevent the fly up to someone from
their front and then move in behind and flip around 180 degrees pattern
that
has become standard with us and 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?

	My first thought about this was to simply allow a 60, 90, 120 or
180
arc and let the player place the arc wherever he wants. If you want a 60
degree forward (from 330 to 30) no big deal. If you want wing weapons
where
one on each side of the ship can fire from directly ahead (0 degrees) to
60
degrees on the side again it is really no big deal. All that matters is
that
you and the other player both know where the gun faces and it is made
absolutely clear. I think the best way to handle the whole thing would
be to
shift to two sets of 60 degree arcs, one offset from the other by thirty
degrees.

>Many thanks!
>
>Jon T. (GZG).
>

	Thank you for a great game!

	P.S. Just some other thoughts in response to other people's
responses:

	I very much advocate PDAF being able to act more like a short
range
ADAF where PDAF could shoot to aid nearby vessels under attack or even
attack fighters within a very limited range. This would be far more
realistic than the present state of affairs.

	360 degree weapons should be limited to 2 at most.

	The wave-gun plus engine thing scares me; what scares me more is
wave-gun plus engine plus cloaking device.

	The Kra'vak need a complete redesign and a costing scheme in
line
with human ships.

	We could definitely use more gadgets and gizmos--the more the
merrier.

	A good way to handle engines might be ratio of thrust to mass
gives
a thrust cost multiplier. Add up the cost of everything else then
multiply
that cost by the thrust cost multiplier to get the cost of the ship.

	I agree that missiles should be easier to shoot down.

	James
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

		___
	       |[|]|
	       |[|]|
	      /|[|]|\	_______  __	//    //
      _ _   /==|[|]|==\(_______)/  \__[__]__[__]__MMMMMMMMMM\
     [_|_|\%%===[|]====(_______)|  |===================HHHHHH\
     [_|_| %%===[|]====(_______)|  |=X=X=X==X=X=X======HHHHHHH]
     [_|_| %%==========(_______)\__/ }C=K@	  WWWWWWWWWW/
     [_|_|/
					    }C=K@
     |_____||__________||_________||____________||___________|
      Main    Bridge/	   Fuel/      Weapons/	   Scanners/
      Drive   Quarters	Jump Drive  Ship's Boats Spinal Mount

	Battlecruiser INTREPID, CORMORANT-class
	Captain James L. Butler III, Commanding
	JAMESBUTLER@worldnet.att.net