Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

Ok,I just read this now, and I usually like to give my first reaction
before 
seeing everyone else's reaction.

Sliding ship scales and no arbitrary breakpoints: this is great for 
tournament play balance, etc.  Structuring the damage tracks, now that
could 
be fun.  If you're really making size open ended, Jim Bell's pattern
diagram 
gets too big to print in a book, so you probably want an algorithm and a

sample diagram.  How about a rule of 5 ?  Small ships have two rows of
up to 
5 boxes, boxes split evenly between the rows.  Ships with more than 10 
damage boxes add another row of 5 and then extend each row by 5.  This
gives 
5/5/x for x=1 to 5, then 6/5/5, 6/6/5, 6/6/6,7/6/6, etc. up to 10/10/10.
 
Then it's time to add another row of 10 and then extend the rows to 15. 

That gets us up to MASS 120.  Add a 5th row and then extend the rows to 
length 20.  Egads, MASS 200 already.

Paying a % of MASS for your thrust: I like it.	I might also like paying
a 
percentage of your MASS for shields, but the current system's OK too.  
Certainly higher MASS ships will proliferate, so emphasize some reason 
(other than common sense, which some lack) to include destroyers in your

forces.  Maybe shields are fixed MASS systems, but Kra'vak armour costs
a 
%age of hull MASS.

More MASS for guns:  This is needed.  Are the numbers right ?  Well, I 
wanted an A to be around 10 times what a C is, and for all four arcs,
that's 
about what the cost is.  I assume AA's get a little MASSier/pricier ? 
Pulse 
torpedoes, OTOH, should probably stay at 5 or 6 MASS.  Oh, and Kra'vak, 
well, make those railguns way more expensive.  But you knew that !

Rear arc only when no drive: I like it, and it fits some of what players

have been tending toward with special rules, like aft firing
submunitions 
but not beams, etc.

Greater fighter movement:  This should be very interesting.  I guess
further 
play will help sort it out.

Alternate arcs:  Much better for hexagonal bases, marginally better for 
Geohex clock bases than 90 degree arcs.  It might hurt fighters a lot to
be 
held to 60 degrees.  Lots of players give fighters 360 degrees for
firing.  
Maybe you could consider it.  Interestingly enough, with these rules 
favouring broadsides and a 'naval attack' rather than a 'fighter'
attack, I 
immediately see that a B or A battery covering bothsides must include
the 
aft or forward arc, and that makes a 3 arc A or B as expensive in MASS
as 
two one arc systems.  Player's preference, I guess, as to which is
better.  
I prefer three arcs, but unlucky threshold checks will burn you.

Well, that's my initial reaction.
Tom McCarthy