Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

In message <19970302030405734.AAA58@nas1-5.acd.net>
hosford.donald@email.acd.net (hosford.donald) writes:
> At 02:55 AM 2/28/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >At 02:44 AM 2/26/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >	   Perhaps what you need is some sort of sliding scale. Perhaps
an
> >exponential scale might be better. That way, low cost ships would pay
> >proportionately less for higher thrust than higher cost vessels. That
would
> >work to keep people from just building a handful of gigantic
superships.
> 
> A sliding scale isn't nessesary.....small ship's engines will be
cheap.	And
> the large ship's engines will be expensive.  What this does is put the
> players in the same position as the real military ship designers....If
you
> put in more engines, you have to leave out weapons, or defences.    So
large
> ships can have as much acceleration as the small ships, but their
engines
> will be more expensive, and they will have to give up weapons, ect.
that
> they could have carried.

No offence, Donald, but I really couldn't disagree more. I have no 
desire to put players in the position of "designers" (this being my 
idea discussed above). I would rather put them in the position of 
"commanders", but I digress.

Let us consider your idea (and this all, I think, holds true for
JMT's ideas... just to bring the content in line with it's subject). 
Take eight escorts. Clag them all together to get a capital ship 
with the same thrust rating, and maybe cash in a few weapons for 
shields (but that probably isn't necessary).

What odds do you give the escorts in a fight to the finish with the
sum of their own parts? Anybody like to quote me some prices? I'll 
bet on the monster ship, thank you.

It seems overwhelmingly obvious that the whole is greater than the 
sum of it's parts. It must therefore cost more points or the game 
is broken.

-- 
David Brewer