Re: FTIII

Date sent:  13-DEC-1996 10:09:05 

>I don't see a need for a mass, so long as something is used as a 
>multiplier. Charge a flat point cost for everything, including hull
>boxes, and multiply by a factor derived from the thrust. Or use the
>number of hull-boxes as a multiplier. Or both. A more expensive 
>weapon will demand a more survivable platform, anyway, so there's 
>your mass-factor.

This would certainly solve my Klingon problem. The hulls have to be so
big to accommodate all the gubbins that they end up far TOO survivable.
Why won't they just DIE?

>I think tech-levels are a red herring. If a superior technology can
>shrink it all down... and make a smaller platform more survivable,
>then the exact same ship in FT stat terms, same weapons, same hull-
>boxes, same thrust, could be quite different "masses". But what is 
>mass relevant to?

I remember my original proposal to reflect varying tech levels by
shrinkage. An old dreadnaught might end up as little more than a
rather unmanouverable escort.

>...Only to an FT catholic...

Me?

+-------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Adam Delafield, I.T. Officer	      | Bolton Institute,  |
| #include "witty_saying"	      | Eagle Tower,	   |
| E-mail : ad4@Bolton.ac.uk	      | College Way,	   |
| Phone  : +44 1204 528851 (ext 3163) | Bolton, UK.	   |
| Fax	 : +44 1204 399074	      | BL3 5AE.	   |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+