Re: [FT] Needle Beam questions

Please forgive the negative tone of this post. I just happen to be
saying no
alot here.

From: "Morgan Vening" <morgan@optushome.com.au> 

>I'm looking at the concept of Needle Beams....The FAQ uses the example 
>of blowing the weapons mount to bits. This I have no problem with. 

>What I see as being the problem is that Fire Controls and Engines 
>will be the most common target of these systems. Not being 
>repairable I can see being a big problem, if I make a fleet with NB's 
>as it's primary weapon system. So, I'll open up the floor. 

>Do people think FC's and Engines should not be targetable by 
>NB's? Much like Control Systems for FC's their main 
>instrumentation would be internal, with multiple redundant external 
>systems? And Engines being too large/armoured to be affected by 
>the precision strikes? 

No. Your objections are primarily based on PSB - that FireCons and/or
engines are either more distributed or protected on a given ship. There
are
any nuber of PSB ways to get around that. The main objection, however,
is
that if you take an already weak weapon and weaken it further it
becoomes
useless in the game. Needle beams are hard to use effectively at the
best of
times, and their primary targets are Drives and Firecons. Take that away
and
theres no reason to use them over any other more effective (for the mass
and
cost) weapon system. Theres been recent abundant discussion about Needle
variants to correct present weaknesses - see the WotW discussions from
the
last couple weeks for perspectives on long-range and multi-arc Needles.

>Or, do people think that the damage from NB's against these 
>systems should be repairable? Rerouting of the energy conduits for 
>an engine, changing to a redundant system for Fire Control? 

No. Same reason. This does not make the Needle _quite_ as useless, but
given
this rule I'd never even try use them vs. a capital ship (or even a
cruiser)
with lots of damage control. Waste of time.

>Or a combination of the two? Engines not being destroyable, FC's 
>being repairable, or vice versa. 

No. This both weakens and adds more complexity to the weapon's rules.

>Or, do people think NB's should just not be permitted, full stop? 

No. I (and others, I think) think the Needles need to be brought into
the
23rd (almost) century with "advanced" (read Heavy and/or Long Range
and/or
Multi-arc) versions, not weakened furher.

>Which would be a shame as I am working on a house set for an  
>Islamic fleet, and figured maneuverable and precise would be a 
>good thematic concept. 

Take a look at Laserlight's IF fleets and design philosophy. As one who
prefers playing New Israel, I think I would welcome facing a primarily
Needle-armed fleet.