FT/FB points costs, was: [MISC] [OT] Bring and Battle

Binhan Lin wrote:

> You can still
> min\max in FT/FB but it's less obvious and the advantages are much
less.  So
> I would suspect that most of the points have been equilibrated in
FT/FB
and
> it won't need much more tweaking in the future.

We (playtesters and Jon) did our best to get the weapon Mass values
right. The "best" weapon combination is the one that fits into your
tactical style - each of the main weapon types (batteries of various
classes, pulse torps, needles, salvo missiles, sub-packs) has a range, a
target type and a set of arcs where it gives the highest bang for your
bucks. There is no "3-arc A batteries are equal or superior to all other
weapons at all ranges", or at least we were unable to find them. Since
the points costs for the weapons are simply 3x their Mass, the points
should be OK as well.

Similarly, the Mass allocations for engienes and hull are OK. I'm not,
however, entirely convinced that the points costs (2x Mass) for engines
and hull are right, and herein lies the potential for min/maxing that I
see in the FB design rules. Not sure how I'd want to change it, though -
speed and durability are both very nice to have :-/ The cost for any FB
ship tends to be about 3.5 times its Mass (except for carriers who pay
extra for the fighters), so the FT/FB points system is a rather blunt
measurement of combat power. It exists, though.

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@nacka.mail.telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry