Re: Bigger not always better--Take 2

Hi, guys;
	A fair number of the contributors to this thread seem to be
trying
to improve the "realism" of FT by making it more like late 20th century
surface naval warfare- I think this risks the important generic nature
of FT
and that it's really in the same category as such genre adaptations as
Full
Trek or FT Star Wars.  Please note, I'm not saying these modifications
are
themselves a bad thing, in fact quite the reverse.  Quite a few of my
own
designs are for what might be called "Wet Thrust"  (sorry I couldn't
resist
it!).  I just feel that they should ALL be recognized as modifications
towards particular style preferences.

	I think that, as the rules specifically state that the
discontinuous
hull sizes were _intended_ to make escorts FEEL different from cruisers,
etc., the "fix" should be a discontinuous modification of the
capabilities
of different size categories.  This already exists in a small way with
the
extra Firecons on larger ships.  In the past, along with several others,
I've suggested increasing the mass requirement for "inappropriately
large"
batteries, especially if they're multi-arc, and my designs now
(usually!)
follow this scheme:

Beam/Arcs     Escort	  Cruiser      Capital	   Supership

C/1		1	     1		  1	       1
C/2 or 3	1	     1		  1	       1

B/1		4	     2		  2	       2
B/2 or 3	6	     2		  2	       2

A/1		6	     6		  3	       3
A/2 or 3	9	     9		  3	       3

AA/1	       n/a	    10		  5	       5
AA/2 or 3      n/a	    15		 10	       5

(I apologize to the old hands for posting this table again)

	I think a major improvement would be a change in points costs
for
multi-arc beams.  At present, the cost difference between an A/1 and an
A/3
is inconsequential, whereas the difference in their effectiveness is
large.
Consider a Mass-80 superdreadnought with say, 8 A batteries.  The cost
of 8
A/3s is only 48 points more than that of 8 A/1s, but adds 3 "compass
points"
of arc, whereas an extra thrust point for the same ship costs 80 points!
The cost of multi-arc weapons should at least compare with that of
increased
maneuvreability.

	One other thing- Pulse torpedoes.  I think they are fairly duff,
especially on big slow-turners.  I think they would be greatly improved
if
they got a bonus of 1 on their "to hit" roll for each extra Firecon
supporting them.  That would let capitals fire them effectively at
significantly greater range than escorts or cruisers (12" and 6"
advantages
respectively).	Keeping the popular "C-DAF" rule would then provide a
reason
for an extra tactical use for fighters, i.e. tying up firecons.

sorry for the length of the ramble!
Cheers,
Rob Paul,
NERC IVEM, Oxford