Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

Jon T. 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...
:

Great!	Keep it simple.

>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
:

I like this!  I never liked the idea that all ships used 50% for
standard
systems like engines, etc.  I think the idea of adding mass based on
more
powerful engines is excellent.	What other systems will make up the
other
bits? Possibly a powerplant or this considered part of the drives?  

>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.
:

Great!	The A-batt mass is one item many of us would like to see
changed.  I
think this would be fair and increase diversity in designs.  I like
keeping
the C-batt as mass 1, but please keep points included in the design to
allow
folks to buy each arc, so we can model ships that might not use
multi-arc
C-batts.

>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...

Please do this!  There should be no reason to not allow fire to the rear
if
the engines are silent.

>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). 

Giving the fighters extra mobility will help keep them in the game while
using the advanced movement as standard should keep them from being too
deadly.  I like this.  Lately, I've been trying to get more of my
friends to
use the advanced fighter movement rule.  36" movement = fast fighter? 
24"
movement = all other types?

>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 prefer using the 90 degree arcs.  Using the 60 degree fore and aft
arcs
would resemble wet-navy a bit too much.  If anything, firing arcs should
be
dictated by the ship configuration, but this would be adding more
complexity
to the game. 
Such as selecting a sphere, cone, cube, dispersed configuration, etc.
could
each produce different firing arcs.  Using the 90 degrees arcs keeps it
simple without hinting at actual ship configuration.

Mike Miserendino