Re: [FT] Keeping "Old" RGs

"Wasserman, Kurt" wrote:

> Howdy Tim,
>
> The problem that I am having is that all of the "This Weapon is More
> Powerful Than That Weapon" issues can all be addressed by tweaking
point
> costs.  If a given weapon is the best at long range, the best at short
range
> and also the best in the middle range, then it should have a higher
point
> cost.  I believe we all agree there.
>

It's impossible to disagree with your statement, but one problem with
this is
that, IMHO, the points costs for weapons in FT (all flavours) is
disproportionately low. An 'average' ship uses around 20-30% of its mass
for
offensive weaponry, which costs 15-25% of the total ship cost (I've
based these
figures on a not-very-exhaustive survey of the four main powers'
battlecruisers
in the FB). If you gave this hypothetical 'average' ship weapons which
were
twice as powerful, and charged it twice as many points, it would only be
around
20% more expensive - not, IMHO, enough to make the designer think twice
about
fitting the more powerful weapons.

Currently all of the basic weapons in the FB cost exactly the same -
three
points per mass taken up. So cost considerations don't really come into
the
design process at all - whatever weapon fit you want in a given mass
will cost
the same. This works at the moment because the basic weapon systems
(excluding
Nova Cannon, Wave Guns etc) are well balanced and none is significantly
better
than any other. If a new basic weapon appeared that WAS more powerful
than the
others, and cost a little bit more, I have a nasty suspicion that it
would
unbalance the whole cost / design system.

Because of the way the cost / design system is structured, RG need to be
larger,
not necessarily more expensive.