Re: FT III Wishlist

On Mon, 26 May 1997, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> >2. SIX FIRING ARCS
> 
> Why 6 fire arcs?

I like four. Maybe a tighter "fixed forward" arc for some weapons (but 
NOT the "straight ahead only"), but four is fine most of the time. 
Straight angles are easy to eyeball.

> matter how well armoured a ship is. Adding additional damage boxes is
> probably the easiest way to handle armour. 

Agreed.

>	  Another idea might be to allow partial armouring. For an extra
20
> points say, a ship can armour a number of systems (escorts-1,
crusiers-2,
> capitals-3). The armoured systemm adds no extra mass but allows that
system
> to ignore it's first threshold roll. 

That actually follows real warship armoring better than any "overall" 
armor score. Though I would give it mass. Say:

Internal armor: 20 pts/ 1 mass 
Internal armor can cover any number of components. When any of the
covered components fail a threshold check (or are hit with a needle 
attack), lose the armor instead. Only one armor section can cover each 
system. Armor does not help against EMP attacks.

Why "any number of systems"? Because the more stuff you put in it, the 
more likely it is to trade the armor for something less important, like
a 
single PDAF. You *can* use it to soak the first failed threshold, but
the 
payoff is probably better if you limit the armor to the components you 
really can't afford to lose.

The number of armor sections needs to be limited, or Screen-3 ships
cover 
their generators with a ton of armor and stay nearly invulnerable for 
much longer.

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |