RE: 3 arc cost

On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 2:20 PM, PCARON [SMTP:Pcaron@cris.com]
wrote:
> > Should extra arcs take mass, it's not a question of simple throwing
in 
> > a few more points. It becomes a question of what you can fit in the
hull.
>

If I were redesigning the arc mass system...

I must admit I fail to see why you should pay
a mass cost for a specific extra arcs

If you take a WWII battleship turrent as
a baseline. Most of these had a three 
arc field or fire, but you payed the one
off mass cost of the turret once. A
more fixed mount weapon didn't pay
for the mass cost of the turret but 
had a more limited field of fire.

So I would say any multi-arc weapon 
pays a single mass cost, which is for
the machinery to point it into the multiple
arcs.

As A beams are bigger than C-B then
the mass/cost  of the A turrent should be
significantly greater. 

Specific backgrounds can relax these rules
the phaser strips/arrays in STTNG being an
obvious example.

sincerely
tim jones
--
Reality is for those who can't cope with Science Fiction.