Re: [FTFB] Fleet Book Kra'Vak
From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:01:46 -0800
Subject: Re: [FTFB] Fleet Book Kra'Vak
> You are correct, I was not thinking in terms of 'civilian' ships.
>However, the other side of the coin is: What if this is right?
>What if the 'K' use a 'weak' but armored hull for the transport ships
>assign to the support duties of the fleet and transportation services.
I see your point, but I would still vote for the option that allows for
more individuality. I suppose it depends on whether you think the "K"
armor
everything or not.
> Reasons:
> 1) The 'To Hit' falls off with range, this is not true w/beams.
> 2) As the 'To hit' increases the ability to keep the enemy in
> the 'effecive area' decreases. (with 1 arc type 3)
> Note: the actual solution to this problem is to buy massive
> numbers of type 1 railguns (since they have the same range and
> to hit as the type 3, and a larger fire arc.) (The same is
> true of beams, but the best is the type 2 in this case.)
> 3) The damage 'reroll' rule makes it highly desireable to
> throw more dice. This will generate more 6s, and therefor
> more rerolls, and therefor more damage. JTL
Excellent point here. Matthew has me convinced that the re-roll option
for
railguns is probably not the best idea, and in light of this, I'm
inclined
to agree.
The problem might be solved by varying the effective range brackets - as
Matthew suggested - to some multiple of the railgun class (he suggested
4/6/8, and I countered with 3/6/9).
> Actually, keep up the good work, it will take some time to
>work out the bugs (it's a Joke).
I actually like criticism, so I'm pleased to get great input like this.
I'll get back to work...
Schoon