Re: 3 arc cost

In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.971209112242.19801A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
Kurki-Suonio writes:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Brian Bell wrote:
> 
> > I believe that FT3 will impose both cost and mass for additional
arcs.
> 
> I agree, there should be additional mass involved. Otherwise it will 
> ultimately boil down to "I'm already paying 700 points for this
battleship,
> and adding full arcs to all weapons is only X points more? Load 'em
up."

An FT2 bolt-on that I suggested some while back (and I wasn't the
first to think of it, it transpired) is to rate battery mass at 
n+(n/arc) where n = 0.25 for C's, 0.5 for B's and 1 for A's.

This leaves the familiar 3-arcers at the familiar 1, 2 and 4 mass. 
The 2-arc A's beloved of official GZG designs come in at GZG's 
official 3 mass. Nippy little ships get the option of 1-arc B's @ 
1 mass or 1-arc A's @ 2 mass.

A mini-survey on the list had repondants fairly evenly divided 
between preffering 6 1-arc A's, 4 2-arc A's and 3 3-arc A's for a
thrust 4 cruiser.

Having said that, I really don't mind if all batteries are 3-arc
weapons. It makes a change from all the 1-arc special anti-shield
weapons...

-- 
David Brewer