Re: Descriptive design system idea

James Butler writes:
> At 12:24 AM 3/10/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >I've tried to make the numbers relatively consistent with those
> >from the FT rules. Systems have a base cost of four times their
> >current mass. Screens are a bit funny in that I've made them cost
> >twice, once to shaft small ships and again to shaft the large ones. 
> >It all needs a lot of work, damage boxes, for example, ought to
> >cost more on the first track than one the second (I've ducked the
> >issue of how damage tracks should be formed). &c. ad nauseum.
> >
> 
>	  Is there any reason you haven't included costs for More Thrust
> systems (like you simply haven't gotten around to them yet)? 

Mostly to K.I.S.S. Partly because some systems are too silly. Wave 
guns, nova cannon and reflex fields avail me not.

> Or to better
> phrase what I mean, do you see any system that couldn't be costed by 4
times
> its mass?

Missiles are a bit funny. As a long-range expendable there would be
a pull toward designing ships with little damage and many, many
missiles. I don't see that as good.

Cloaks and reflex field probably should be paid for, like shields,
both ways, a flat cost and pushing up the exponent.

Many of the EW systems should probably be pointed higher (like area 
ECM). Sensors are a little odd, in that basic sensor are 
indestructable (e.g. have no record sheet symbol) and the usefulness
of all sensors varies depending whether emplaced on an escort,
cruiser or capital.

Kra'Vak tech should probably weigh in at about 12 times it's mass.
Not sure about armour, nor about Sa'Vasku.

-- 
David Brewer