Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

Excerpts from FT: 22-Feb-97 [OFFICIAL] new ideas! by Ground Zero
Games@gzero. 
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
fore/aft
> arcs of 60 degrees each and side arcs of 120 degrees - this brings the
arcs
> in line with the 12 course directions, and makes fire arcs easy to
judge
> from a hexagonal model base (1 base side = 60 degrees, 2 = 120). Do
you
> think this will make a great deal of difference to the game, other
than
> (perhaps) making broadside mounts a little more acctractive?

I like this one, but then I've got a large number (more than 2/3s my
ships) of Space Fleet minis, which used broadsides all over the place. 
Of course, this rather trashes the "fire forward" front 180 of some of
the ships.  Hmm....

Two things, then:
1) I'm wondering how much work it would be to include a "turreting cost"
or some such, which allows you to mount over different angles.	This
would probably turn into a royal pain actually, but could make for some
very interesting ships designs. ^_^  And alternative -- which I do
rather like -- is to have the standard fore/port/etc. arcs that exist
now, and a second set which are rotated 45 degrees.  This allows for
front or side 180 degree fire arcs.

2) On a rather unrelated note: I like the way you're changing the drive
system to a portion of the hull, now how much work would it be to put in
some sort of power system?  I'm thinking of the Omegas in B5 here; they
seem to have a lot of guns which they can't all fire at once.  So you
can make a central power system or something, which you allocate fire
for to the various weaponry.  I don't think I'd want to do this for the
small escorts or anything, but they're not likely to need it -- you just
power all their weapons.  But having a Battleship with lotsa guns and an
alternative torpedo tube or something, which if it wants to fire it
can't fire some guns, would allow for a lot more tactical flexibility.

		    Aaron Teske
		    Mithramuse+@cmu.edu