Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

Well, I quess I should chime in on this topic.

Ground Zero Games wrote:
 
> NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
> I'm not giving rules and numbers here, because they haven't been
written yet :).
> This is simply the rough outline of the new system:
> 
> 1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between
Escorts,
> Cruisers and Capitals, and have a single "sliding scale" of ship
designs
> from smallest to largest; this will also mean that Superships cease to
need
> special rules - you can build something as big as you like under the
basic
> system. (Still figuring on how to best do the damage track and
threshold
> points - have been watching the last few days' discussions with
> interest...)

	I'd have to see what you've got in mind before I make a decision
on
this. 

> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
in
> the design (probably = to total mass rather than 50%), but out of this
you
> will have to use mass for drives and other bits that are currently
assumed
> to be part of the "other 50%" of the ship mass. The thrust rating will
> depend on the % of the ship that you devote to the drives -
preliminary
> ideas are for 5% ship mass per thrust factor. FTL drive will use 10%
of
> ship mass. This means you can build a ship with very high thrust if
you
> wish, at the cost of having very little weapons space - or a very
"slow"
> one bristling with guns.....
> (OK, I know this will change the ship designs considerably, but then
so
> will a simple change like making A batts cost 4 mass....)

	 I like the idea of paying more MASS for faster drives.  In my
other
notorious playgroup, they mount thrust 8 engines on ships with a mass of
70.  It would be logical that the faster and more maneverable the ship
is, the bigger the drive system would be.

> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
small
> turret); B = 2, plus 1 per additional fire arc over first; A = 4 plus
2 per
> additional fire arc over first. The numbers may not be perfect (as I'm
sure
> all the armchair mathematicians will soon tell me:)) but I think
they'll go
> a long way to fixing the age-old problem.

	What problem?  I never understood the weeping about the beam
batteries
at all.   
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
ONLY in
> a turn in which the ship uses no thrust from its main drive... should
> change tactics a little and possibly help to avoid the "plughole"
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!

	I never had a problem with firing in the rear arcs.  It all
depends on
what universe your playing in.

>  and making the revised turn
> sequence from MT a standard basic rule (ie: fighters move after order
> writing, but before ships move, so you have to anticipate the enemy's
> move).

	Jon, Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!!  I really dislike this idea.  IMHO
fighters
are supposed to be more nimble and faster than clunky warships.  They
should have the upperhand against normal ships and be able to react to
there movement.  We used the revised rules with one of my playgroups and
it made the fighter's worthless.  Once fighters start appearing all they
do is evade them.

> 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?
> 
	Again, I'd like to playtest this before I decide whether I like
it or
not.

Later,
Mark S.