Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re:

I rather like the idea of PDS-n rating. Rather than a new nomenclature
you simply pay greater cost/mass and have a PDS-3 over the PDS-1

Chip
----
"The reason the mainstream is considered a stream is because it's so
shallow" --George Carlin

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:56 AM, John Lerchey <lerchey@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> That's a viewpoint that has never been presented to me before, and now
> having heard it, I'm going to happily abandon my former request to
> have the advanced fire con option.  You are correct, it would be a
> "too unique and why doesn't it available in other places" kind of
> option. :)
>
> Along those lines, I would then want to advocate a minor change to the
> proposed PDS/ADS convention.  I know that the difference only effects
> range, but still think that it's worth considering.  Leave them all
as
> PDS, but assign numbers.  So you have PDS-1 with a 6mu range, PDS-2
> with a 12mu range, and if you are so inclined, PDS-n with 6nmu range.
>
> Quick thought about CIDS and cost issues for very small/very large
> ships.  On larger ships I think that the increased mass can be PSB'd
> away as having to simply cover more area because the hull is huge.
 If
> it seems to be too cheap/small on very small ships, give it a minimum
> mass and cost that is prohibitive for whatever class is "too small" to
> have CIDS, beit it FF, DD or whatever.
>
> Thanks for the insight Tom!
>
> J
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Follow up questions for Indy:
>>
>> If you want some testing, should it include:
>>
>> Fighter Morale
>> Any form of Fighter Endurance (and if so, what variety/rules?)
>>
>> To Mr. Lerchey:
>>
>> I can see a flavour point for what you argue to or for Indy's view.
>>
>> I'm quite happy with 'PDS made better with a better FC' or  'a
shorter and
>> longer range PDS system' (much like you have B1, B2, and B3
>> batteries). Either seem to have a reasonable sensibility about
tthem.
>>
>> However, notice that no other system in the game is improved by
another
>> system in the way PDS was improved by ADFC nor in the way the Lerchey
>> variant would work. We don't have batteries and then improve them
with
>> better FC. If it would make sense for PDS, wouldn't it make sense for
any of
>> the weaponry? We just generally don't price FC (at least range from
FC) as a
>> separate item - it is rolled into a weapon mount. So I can see Indy's
>> approach being coherent with that standard.
>>
>> It also eliminates a variability of valuation and that seems like a
big
>> advantage.
>>
>> ADS as a long range PDS - pay X PV, get X dice of PDSness.
>> ADS as a range extender on PDS - pay X PV, magnify the effect of
every PDS
>> on the ship (which could be any number from 1 to very many more than
one).
>>
>> One of those schemes scales in a predicatable fashion. ADS as PDS
range
>> extender has a value that would vary with PDS count - on ships with
few PDS,
>> it would be worth way less than on ships with many. For reference
material
>> see "Fighters, value changes with ratio of fighters to enemy fighters
+
>> PDS".
>>
>> So, I think Indy's approach is better. Flavour wise, both systems
work. PV
>> wise, I think the longer ranged PDS option is more evenly applicable.
>>
>> T.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gzg-l mailing list
>> Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
>> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l