Re: [GZG] FT Light: 5 is the new 6?

But you must remember that the payback would be when this Thrust-5 Drive
takes its Thresthold (or Needle Beam) hit. Then the Thrust-5 is halved
rounded-DOWN to Thrust-2 with just 1 point of Maneuverability.

Say Hello, HMS Sitting Duck.

-jerry
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:33:49 +0000
>From: emu2020@comcast.net
>Subject: Re: [GZG] FT Light: 5 is the new 6?
>To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>Message-ID:
>      
<072820082033.9184.488E2D2D000D666D000023E02207300033CFCDCFCD9A030A@comc
ast.net>
>	
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>I agree here. You used the system to your advantage. In real life,
designers of weapons are going to push the envelope and find the savings
in weight and component space if they can. All you did was find a way to
do this in the game and nothing kept your friends/opponents from doing
the same, so who are they to criticize.
>
>Sounds like sour grapes to me.
>
>-Eli
>
>-------------- Original message -------------- 
>From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@gmail.com> 
>
>> Sounds like powergaming to me. I'll bet you're one of those cheesy 
>> guys who put weapons on your ships too. 
>> 
>> People powergame in real life. At least, if they're smart they do. It

>> only becomes a problem in gaming if you have some weird lopsided 
>> design that clearly is an artifact of the rules and has no real life 
>> viability. 
>> 
>> On 7/27/08, Bill Brush wrote: 
>> > Man this would be funny if the irony wasn't so painful. :-) 
>> > 
>> > Back in the day when I was designing a fleet and attendant doctrine
I 
>> > was going by the "round up" rule for turns, so I did what I
considered 
>> > the most logical thing to do, which was give all my ships an odd 
>> > thrust rating. When asked about it I said truthfully that I did it
to 
>> > get the extra turn as my doctrine was designed for maneuverability,

>> > and lots of short-range firepower at the expense of no long-range 
>> > firepower. I was then roundly criticized and castigated for being 
>> > "cheesy", etc, etc, etc. Not needing any further headaches I pretty

>> > much shelved my FT plans and moved on to other things. 
>> > 
>> > Ah well, such is life. :-) 
>> > 
>> > Bill 
>> > 
>> > On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Michael Llaneza 
>> wrote: 
>> > > Jason Weiser wrote: 
>> > >> Hmm...this could be a lot of fun. 
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > > 
>> > > I'm inclined to agree. It'll have a positive effect on ship
designs. You 
>> > > can turn 3 points with only a thrust of 5. Ships that pay the
extra mass 
>> > > for thrust 6 will likely become less common and creating more
variation. 
>> > > This will be good. 
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________ 
>> > Gzg-l mailing list 
>> > Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu 
>> >
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l 
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Robert Mayberry 
>> (678) 984-5113 
>> Robert.Mayberry@gmail.com 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> Gzg-l mailing list 
>> Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu 
>> http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/private/gzg-l/att
achments/20080728/fff184d3/attachment.htm 
>
>------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l