Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: FTL

There are certain settings where FTL capable ships are rare and there
are
agreed upon ROEs that prohibit folks from shooting at them (I'm looking
at
you Early-Days Battletech -- later on they added "real" warships).  To
this
end I'm a fan of keeping FTL a separate ship component - outside of core
systems.  The cost in mass can be dependent on setting -- early FTL will
probably be huge globs of machinery while late/advanced FTL drives may
fit
in a small room.  Who knows.

Speaking of core systems - has anyone thought about removing the concept
all together and just slapping those icons directly on the SSD in
essence
treating them like anything else on the SSD?  It would make SSDs more
busy
but allow for a golden BB effect. It would also allow the ship builder
to
say "I want a bridge and a combat bridge/CIC..."  It's pretty hard to
fight
to the death when, on your second threshold, you lose maneuver drives,
your
only bridge, life support, etc...  Morale rules can be layered on this
system to make the "Do we fight the ship or do we fight to survive?"
decisions a bit more realistic.

I won't talk about fuel and burn rates because I'd still like FT to be a
fun game.  :)

D.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Phillip Atcliffe
<atcliffe@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>
> So overall, I would sum things up as follows:
>
>    1. Keep FTL as a system that can operate during a game and that can
be
>    affected (damaged, repaired) during a game.
>    2. Provide a benefit for non-FTL designs, but not such a large one
>    that they automatically dominate battles with starships.
>
>
>