Re: Idle Torpedo Thoughts

	>From: "Tom McCarthy" <tmcarth@fox.nstn.ca>
	> I'm a firm believer that MASS is a more serious design
restriction
than
	> points.  I think if the 3-torp or 6-torp does more damage per
MASS, then
	> it's the better weapon, no questions asked.

I think that gives point balance short shrift. Forcing MASS to be the
only
way to measure wepaons keeps your universe at a roughly constant tech
level.
Miniaturizing or improving efficiency of weapons, or other "advanced"
technology is best done IMO by manipulation of point costs. This is less
straightforward than Mass, but can be worked out with playtesting.

	> To that end, I might be tempted to make the 3-torp do 1 damage
on
a 1-5, 2
	> damage on a 6.  Different mechanic, same damage.  If you opt
for
more
	> damage, increase the MASS.

That mecahnic is not bad for the 3-torp. It's a matter of taste, I
think.

	>The 6-torp is interesting.  I don't think I'd give it PDS
ability,
and I
	>think MASS would have to be up around 7 for one arc and 2 MASS
per
extra
	>arc.

That'd make it far less efficient than 2 P-torps. There's damage/mass
and
there's damage/cost/mass. I think they can all be figured in. It can
make
things harder to calculate, but gives you more freedom in design. 

	>From: Laserlight <laserlight@cwix.com>
	>Just say the normal P Torp is a spread of three shots, and how
many
hit (or,
	>in Indy's case, miss) is reflected by the damage roll.

You could work it that way. Simply redefine the PSB. Annoyingly simple
and
elegant, Laserlight. Thanks. ;-)
However, I still think the issue of balancing systems with points as
well
as/instead of mass is worth more discussion.

Noam