Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

Ground Zero Games wrote:
> 
> NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION 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...)

	Ok, I like the Idea.  But you will need to include provisions
for
maintaining balance in design.	I see lots of little ships made by
strapping a WaveGun to an engin.  Also the micro carrier (it carries
ONLY 1 squadron) will come into the game.  WOW, BIG change in tactics. 

	BTW: I hate superships: - they always end up being immoble
"turrets"


> 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.....
>
	The flat percentage for drives leaves out the law of diminishing
returns.  Now, can I take all of my existing battleships and use the 50%
mass to build engins (that makes thrust 8 battleships)
	The most important element of the "other 50%" mass is crew
quarters.  
Does that mean that each system will have a crew rating that must be
included in the design?  (i.e. an A battery needs a crew of 1, while a
fighter launch bay needs a crew of 10 plus the pilots for the fighters
themselves.)  This could become the key to balanced designs.  (Ok, just
so that I don't get flamed in the list, these are crew UNITS, they could
be live beings, AI computers, or Blobs of goo, it doesn't make a
difference.)
 
> 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.
> 
	With new construction rules based on mass (more mass) you will
have a
tough time getting the numbers right.  The cost should be based only on
the weapons damage and range values.  A consistant 1 mass gets 1 damage
die at a range of 12" is good.	The question is what is the value of the
addtional range in A and B batteries.  I think the attitional range is
worth much more that you have assigned.

> 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!
> 
	A restricted-fire rule like this will just be ignored.	A better
idea
would be additional rear arc only weapons.  They should be both
expensive and limited use items.  (Scatter guns, submunitions,
"mini-space mines" -- all fire and forget systems.) 
	The "plughole" effect is caused as much by the size of the table
as by
the lack of rear fire weapons. 
 
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
> increased fighter move distances (24" or 36"?) 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).

	This is a great idea.  We will get Midway type battles (where no
opposing carriers saw each other).  A further clarification of fighter
movement would also help.  TRY: Fighter squadrons choose their heading
before moving (in a straight line),  therefore the fighters facing is
determined as facing away from their starting position.  Without this
ruling, fighters [can] always attack from the rear arc.  It seems
strange that fighters approaching a ship head-on at high speed can still
attack the rear (But... But... the fighters just make a U-Turn. <yea
right>)
  
> 
> 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?
>
	If you want to promote broadside weapons, make them cheeper.
	Why not make 6 firing arcs? (kidding)
	This change more or less dictates that ships are constructed
like
modern warships (that is long and narrow.)  This is not stictly required
in a space setting.  Further, how would the change affect space
stations?  Are the rules going to have different firing arc schemes
depending on the shape of the ship?

	I think the 4 quadrents are simple and efficient. 

Since you are considering changing the design rules, you might want to
make an effort to include the Kra'vak technology in a mannor consistant
with the other design rules.

For your information, I play with both FT and MT.  Further I use a
computer program to store ship positions.  (That gives me an almost
infinite playing area.)  The tactics might be a little different. 
Running battles take place often.  Ships trying to flee usually get
picked off since the rear arc is exposed, but that makes a stratigic
withdraw an exciting exercise.	The winning ships tend to be the ones
with the most forward firing weapons.

				Tom