Range effects on cost (Was Re: Starship! and FT, from the author)

In message <200009132036.WAA07060@d1o901.telia.com>
	  "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

[snip]
> 
> >>My experience with variable range bands, almost all of which is on
> >>large tables, is that half the size balances pretty well with 2/3
the
> >>range. (The reason it's not "half range - half size" is that the
> range
> >>*in itself* doesn't help you hit more targets; it is the extra
*area*
> >>in which you can look for targets which counts. With twice the
range,
> >>the long-ranged weapon covers four times the area... provided your
> >>table is large enough that the *short*-ranged already covers most of
> >>it!)
> >
> >Arrgh! flaw in my math spotted - the shame! the shame!
> 
> <g> It took me several years to spot it :-/

So, looking at it, as a general rule, if you multiply range by 'n' then
you multiply MASS (and also COST) by the square on 'n' ?

Hmm.. so MASS is proportional to area covered, hang on! what about
adding extra fire arcs, each arc increased the area covered by an amount
equal to the original area covered - darn it, I though I had it sussed,
now I'm confused >:-?
I think I'll go back to mucking about with ship designs!

> 
> >>>Also, has anyone any ideas on the cost breaks / penalties of
> >>>'combined' systems - such as:
> >>> 
> >>>Multiple Class-1's combined to give a weapon that has a range of 12
> >>>mu, and does multiple beam dice - and probably looses the PDS
> >>>capability.
> 
> ...BTW, did you pick the Pulser-C example deliberately, or was it a
> coincidence? :-)

I guess it may have crossed my mind :-)
>  
> >Thanks for the advice.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Later,
> 
> 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
>

Charles 

--