Re: Bigger not always better--Take 2

I liked the ideas for defensive maneuvers offered earlier. It went
something like this (please accept appoligies for errors of memory):

Defensive Maneuvers
A ship that expends 4 thrust points in "defensive maneuvers". This does
NOT
change course or velocity. Any ship targeting such a ship counts the
target
ship at x2 range.

This allowed smaller, nimbler ships to get into striking range. Larger
ships (with a minumum thrust of 4) could also do this, but would not be
able to perform normal maneuvers (such as lining up shots) as easily. 

The problem of giving smaller ships a -1 or -2 to be hit is that it
gives
smaller ships the equivilent of buit-in level 1 or 2 screens. This would
add the the problem of a small cruiser being weaker than a large escort
and
a small capital being weaker than a large cruiser.

I agree that Large ships need to be in a better balance with smaller
ships,
but a more universal (not distinguishing between escort & capital) needs
to
be found.

Brian Bell

----------
From: Paul Calvi <tanker@rahul.net>
To: 'FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk'
Subject: Bigger not always better--Take 2
Date: Wednesday, March 26, 1997 1:21 AM
... There needs to be some OPERATIONAL restriction that keeps the
balance.
The main one I can think of in FT is maneuverability (thus my suggestion
to
make escorts harder to kill with A bats--if a Cap ship loaded up on B
Bats
to counter escorts then it would get waxed vs another CAP ship, thus the
system is self balancing). ...

Thanks,
Paul 
----------