Battery sizes, was Re: FT3 Revision, not Re-write

On 11 Dec 1996, Brian Bell wrote:

> 2) Beam weapons. They need to be spread out more on a tonnage or cost
basis.
>   2a) One way would be to increase tonnage for arcs.
>	       C   1 ton turret
>	       B   2 ton casement
>	       B   3 ton turret
>	       A   4 ton casement
>	       A   6 ton turret   (I feel that 8 tons is too expensive)

Hm. I'd say that 2 B batteries will win over one A battery if they 
are the same mass; but it might be my poor tactics that don't allow me
to 
keep the range open... and one turreted B will probably beat one
casemate A 
as it will be able to stay in a blind arc (this I'm able to
accomplish!).

>   2b) Another option (prefered by me because no ship re-design would 
be needed)
> is to make the classes just add range but not damage potential. Either

make all
> ranges 1d6 damage. Or all class Beams 3d6 at 12", and A&B 2d6 at 24". 
This would
> make the cost/tonage progression more in line with the weapon
capabilities.

If all beams cause the same amount of damage at close range, C batteries

will be The Killer Weapon. cf the discussion of a Mauler weapon some 
while back - 9d6 damage at short range, no long range, mass 3 - this 
would be the same as C beams in your proposal. BTW, I have nothing at
all 
against re-designs...

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson

"Father, what is wrong?"
"My shoes are too tight. But it does not matter, because
 I have forgotten how to dance."
- Londo Mollari