Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

SNIP
>	 Think this is a wonderful idea. All that's needed are some
>indicators of the sizes of specific ship classes from the different
>nation-states of the Full Thrust universe to gauge. The standard NAC
cruiser
>should be a different size than the standard ESU cruiser anyway...
>
>>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....)
>
>	 Also love this idea. However, I really like the idea of fast
small
>ships outmaneuvering the big lumbering hulks. I would really hate to
lose that.

	As there will still be size categories, how about (as a house
rule)
adding to the % points per thrust point for size categories, i.e. for
category 1, (4+1)=5% mass per thrust point, category 2, (4+2)=6% per
thrust
etc.  That way the big fatties have to think more carefully about engine
installations.

>>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.
>
>	 Prefer 1 Mass for a C-bat, three arcs fire. 1 Mass for a B-bat,
1
>arc fire and 2 mass for three arcs fire. 2 Mass for an A-bat, 1 arc
fire and
>add 1 mass for each additional arc of fire. Pulse torpedoes should
either be
>reduced to 4 mass or be improved in some way.

I agree- perhaps allow the use extra Firecons to improve the hit roll
(+1
per extra FC).

SNIP
>	 I think the FTII rule against rear-arc fire should be
continued.
>However, an optional rule to permit rear-arc fire to simulate Star
Trek/Star
>Wars/etc. should be included.

Yup.

SNIP

>	 Thank you for a great game!
	Absolutely!

>
>	 P.S. Just some other thoughts in response to other people's
responses:
>
>	 I very much advocate PDAF being able to act more like a short
range
>ADAF where PDAF could shoot to aid nearby vessels under attack or even
>attack fighters within a very limited range. This would be far more
>realistic than the present state of affairs.
>
>	 360 degree weapons should be limited to 2 at most.
>
>	 The wave-gun plus engine thing scares me; what scares me more
is
>wave-gun plus engine plus cloaking device.
As others have said, there are lots of good cloak ideas out there, and
it
would be a good idea to choose one "standard" idea, perhaps with others
as
alternatives.

>	 The Kra'vak need a complete redesign and a costing scheme in
line
>with human ships.
>	 We could definitely use more gadgets and gizmos--the more the
merrier.

How about keeping mass constraints constant across species, but
radically
altering points cost, so that eg a Kra'Vak Railgun is much cheaper than
a
human railgun, but a human PDAF is much cheaper than a Kra'Vak PDAF

>	 A good way to handle engines might be ratio of thrust to mass
gives
>a thrust cost multiplier. Add up the cost of everything else then
multiply
>that cost by the thrust cost multiplier to get the cost of the ship.
>
>	 I agree that missiles should be easier to shoot down.

	One of the many "Aegis" ideas would be useful, so that people
who
want to play a "modern wet navy" style can have CGs.  Personally, I'd
rather
Trafalgar/Tsushima/Jutland than Coral Sea/Midway!

	Overall, I think it's VERY VERY VERY important that the core
rules
remain simple, so that anyone can start playing and having fun straight
away.  I would be keen to retain the structure of "Core FT/Advanced
FT/MT",
where MT represents a range of optional rules that would help players
customize the game towards their preferred style of play.  

Once again, thanks for a great game!

Cheers,
Rob Paul
Rob Paul
NERC Institute of Virology 
Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3SR	  Tel. (01865) 512361
rpaul@worf.molbiol.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  "Once again, villainy is rotting meat before the maggots of justice!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--