Re: [FT] Evasion

John Crimmins wrote:

[snip "why evasive maneuvers"]

>      Any ship that is going to be evading  must indicate this, by
marking
> an "E" in its order box for the turn.

OK.

>      For every three full points of thrust that it spends, a ship may
> reduce all beam and torpedo fire directed at it by one point per die. 

Unclear. Is the *damage* reduced by 1 pt/3 thrust (which is equal to
level-3 screens in the beam case), or is the *die roll* reduced by 1
(which is equal to level-2 screens for the beams) and if so, which die
in
the torpedo case, hit or damage? (Should be hit die - if you're hit
anyway, you get just as badly hurt as normal...)

Regardless of whether you reduce the damage or the die roll, you
basically take beam batteries out of the picture <shrug>

>      All beam and torpedo fire from an evading ship suffers the same
> penalty--Minus one for each three full points of thrust that are spent
on
> evasion--that the attackers do.

Why? Current naval gun stabilisation can compensate for both intentional
erratic maneuvering and disturbances caused by waves etc, keeping the
gun
steady on the target. Why can't future energy weapons compensate in the
same way? Except for the game balance reason - but the Millenium Falcon
seems quite able to take out TIE fighters even when it's evading IIRC
<g>

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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