FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: FTL

Jon Tuffley wrote:
> After the brief flurry of comments when I first posed the question,
it's  
> all gone quiet again

Not sure if you intended "movement systems" to include FTL, but
anyway...

Possibly radical proposal: scrap the need for FTL on ships.

In my experience, by far the most common Full Thrust scenario is for
every  
ship to have FTL. Scenarios where one side doesn't have FTL are rare,
and  
usually the only effect is that the FTL fleet usually has its points
size  
boosted by 10% to compensate.

I can imagine the presence or absence of FTL making a difference in  
campaigns, but for the typical tabletop battle it's just everyone losing
 
10% of their mass.

No so radical proposal: even out the mass/points cost of all the
different  
forms of FTL.

Hangar mass should be reduced to 1.1 times the mass of the ship being  
carried.

FTL tugs and gates should be able to transport 10 other mass for every 1
 
extra mass spent on their FTL drive.

With this, FTL capability costs 10% regardless of how you do it instead
of  
favouring ships with built-in drives. It would better represent the wide
 
range of different FTL mechanisms found in science fiction.

-- 
	 cheers,
	 Hugh Fisher