Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]

In message <Pine.SUN.3.92.961211114417.1171A-100000@caroli.usc.edu>
lojeck writes:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, David Brewer wrote:
> > it around a bit. Maybe I'll post it straight to GZG later if no
> > one can convince me it's horribly flawed.
> 
> does jon really read this stuff? just wondering if he's ever given any
> indication (he must be awfully busy, after all)...

I meant I'd post it by r-mail not e-mail. R is for "Royal". Mike
Elliot, Jon's sometime co-author is about here.

> > I'm not, however, too chuffed with "casemates" and "turrets".
> > Call me a maximizer, or whatever, but I'm perfectly comfortable
> > with beam weapons being 3-arc weapons first, last and always.
> > There are plenty of single-arc weapons in FT to oblige players
> > to maneuver to bring them to bear: submunitions, railguns,
> > torps, AA's, needles etc.
> 
> I dislike the idea of batteries being 3 arc on small ships. I LIKE the
> idea of a tiny vehicle, just barely large enough to hold its weapon,
being
> restricted by mass to have a 1 arc fire arc. nowadays there is no
reason
> to do that....

I see it quite the other way round. A small ship can give its single
weapon an all-round coverage; it's these bloody great "Star 
Destroyers" with their massive superstructures that should mandate
limited-arcs.

Even then I wouldn't make a simple beam weapon a 1-arc weapon. Front-
and-side strikes me as the most limited such a weapon could be. This
woundn't be so if a ship was physically armoured, but they're not.

All the funny-guns should be (and are) 1-arc wonders.

> > What I am primarily suggesting is that points be retained, but
> > only as a simple multiple of the ship's mass.
> >
> 
> <point system snipped>
> 
> to be honest, I don't see how that is different from the present point
> system except symantically (spelling?)...

Semantics = substance. You mean "syntactically". Syntax = style.

The idea is to be sufficiently similar... but helpfully simpler.

-- 
David Brewer