Re: [FT]Variable Fire Arcs...

Donald Hosford wrote:

>>> >				      Arc Value
> > Weapon		2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12
> >
> > >>Class 2 Beam	  1	-    (2)    -	  -    (3)>>
> >
> > Balance problem here. [snip] I wouldn't go below Mass
> > 1.333 for a single-arc Class-2 - 1.5 seems to play OK for a
120-degree
> > broadside arc... but both of these require Mass fractions, and I
don't
> > want that at all.)
> >
> 
> The only other way to balance this, is to entirely redo the weapon
> tables....Another major change...Oy!

You'd need to multiply all Masses (including those for hull integrity
boxes and armour) by at least 3, preferrably 6 or more, to get the
necessary detail. That'd allow you to fine-tune the other weapons a
little better as well.

But for simplicity's sake I'd agree with the "negligible turret mass
for fewer than 3 arcs" explanation :-/

> > >>Submunitions pack  (1)	1     1     1	  1	2>>
> >
> > No way. In this way a 5-arc sub-pack (which is very nearly
identical to
> > a 6-arc sub-pack in capabilities, except when you don't maneuver)
costs
> > exactly as much as a 1-arc sub-pack (which is quite a bit harder to
hit
> > with). Balanced, you say?
> >
> 
> Balanced?  (hehehehe...sorry for the laughter)  The table needs
> adjustment.  What I assumed when I wrote it:
 
> Any weapon may be mounted on an aiming mechanizium.
>  There are three basic ways to aim a weapon:
>    A) Fixed-mount
>    B) Turreted-mount 
>    C) Nozzle-mount

Yep. So how do you nozzle-mount small, comparatively badly-guided
missile packs (aka sub-munition packs)?

> Please note:	The system has recieved Very little Playtest... How
much 
> can one person playtest something and still recieve some good data?  
> Or get board? :)

Depends entirely on how long you've been playing, and how much
modifying you've done during that time :-/

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