Re: FT-Movement, corkscrewing

In message
<6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9E01D73389@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
	  "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

> From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> 
> > One further point, I'd specify that the thrust required for a
corkscrew
> > _must_ count as manoeuvre thrust, which would:
> > a) limit the manoeuvre to ships with at least Main Drive 6 (or
Advanced
> > Drive 3), which would effectively prevent most large ships from
using it
> >...b) The likelihood of a ship being able to both corkscrew _and_
turn is
> > very low, so the 'damage if ship turns and corkscrews' rule could
> >probably be dropped.
> 
> I kind of like this idea, but...
> Looking at FB1, the total number of ships that could use the roll to
any
> benefit with this restriction are:
> ESU: None
> FSE: San Miguel, Suffren, Milan, Jerez,Ypres (1XC2 on each)
> NSL: None
> NAC: Tacoma, Ticonderoga, Huron, Vandenburg (1XC2 on each)
> 
> So it becomes useful for pretty much custom ships only.
> 
> I'd rather make the cost 4 Thrust and say ships can't turn  while
> corckscrewing.
> 
> Noam
>
Well, as a counter-argument, it could be considered a pretty extreme
manoeuvre, so only highly manoeuvrable ships could do it. The problem of
making the cost 4 Thrust in total is that there are SDNs that have that
much thrust.

Charles