Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

In message <19970223211205.AAA29396@LOCALNAME> James Butler writes:
> At 12:18 PM 2/22/97 +0000, I (DB) wrote:
> >My preferred rejigging would be to go the other way. Want to design a
> >ship? Write down what systems it will have, write down how many hull 
> >boxes it will have, write down what thrust it will have. Tot up the
> >points values of the systems and hull, muliply by some number derived
> >from the thrust. Description over construction.
> >
> >-- 
> >David Brewer
> 
>	  I do think you're on to something here. I've seen systems like
this
> in the past but I've always had the thought, how do you encourage
players to
> take engines in systems like these? If you can take wide arc weapons,
won't
> all the ships degenerate into battle stations that drift closer to
each
> other? 

I'm not sure I understand your point, James. How do we stop this in
any game? Why is this more likely to occur in a descriptive system
vice a constructive system?

> Still, the idea is intriguing. If you have or ever decide to do a
> Full Thrust ship design optional rule for this, please let me know.
I'd love
> to try it out.

I'm sure I will. The problem is how to set the point costs for thrust
ratings. Low-value ships should be encouraged to have greater thrust
ratings than high-value ships.

-- 
David Brewer