Re: Descriptive design system idea

In message
<Pine.SUN.3.91N2x.970312131102.28399C-100000@byse.nada.kth.se> Oerjan
Ohlson writes:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> ...
> > 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.
> ...
> However, is the Thing To Do to reduce the power of missiles (with
AEGIS 
> systems or similar) or to make the missiles more expensive?

Good conservative principles suggest the former. People who carry
out the latter themselves will be able to adjust as required. 

I do think missiles need revision. We can PSB that missiles aren't
ever likely to get in close for a direct hit (too predicable a
trajectory vs. point defense) so detonate at a distance. That would
make a missile like a mine with an engine. Push the damage from a 
mine up, and drop missiles down.

> > 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.
> ...
> I'd just include 
> the cost for basic sensors in the FC cost.

I think that that's a fine idea.

> Trouble is, of course, that that gives freighters military-grade basic

> sensors too...

Well, these are rather heavily-armed merchants. To do a proper
convoy escort scenario that mimicked any era later than, say, the
introduction of steam would suggest that merchants be entirely
unarmed targets. 

-- 
David Brewer