Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

In a message dated 97-02-22 04:56:27 EST, you write:

> 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...)
>  
>  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....)
>  
A flat rate will se the death of escorts, since they will lose their
principle advantage:  cheap speed.  I'd like to see some sort of sliding
scale on Thrust, but suggest something a little different.  One
possibility
which would require a bit more math would be to have each Mass UNit of
engines profuce a certain amount out output.  The thrust is then
computed by
dividing the output by the ships Mass squared.	I've played with the
numbers
on this and I think it could work.  I also think the idea of having
separate
Main thrust and maneuver thrust could work well.  Main thrust could be
more
flatly proportional than maneuver thrust.  

>  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.
>
I've been playing with A-batts at 2/3/4 for one/two/three arc weapons. 
This
has resulted in a lot more limited arc weapons.  I also used the similar
ratios for the other beam weapons (fractional masses haven't bothered me
much)
  
>  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 like the idea of rear fire if thrust is not used.  It's just another
tactical decision t make...
  
>  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). 
>
I have been playing with operating fighters as thrust 12 ships which
don't
have to plot their orders and I think that this is the way to go. 
Fighters
can zomm around the board, but have to watch their accumulated speed
like
everyone else.	They also make their turns in two step increments like a
ship
(max 90 degrees at each step), so they don't spin on a dime.  When we
tried
using the MT fighter turn sequence, most fighters never expended all of
their
combat endurance in even our longest games.  I like the idea of them
being
nimble and fast to react, but restricted by the same "physics" that
govern
everyone elses movement.  As for *DAF, I've not noticed that it needs to
be
made any more effective vs the fighters as some have suggested.  Maybe
its
just a design philosophy.  My large capital ships will have 6 PDAF and
be
accompanied by an Aegis cruiser, all of which tends to rip fighter
squadrons
to bits. 
  
>  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'd stick with one size of arc, but 90 or 60 degrees are both fine.
 Broadside ships are only going to appear if there is a space advantage
to
one arc weapons.  I use broadside ships fairly often.  The perform well
once
the battle turns into the big swirling furball, since they can direct
their
maximum firepower at two targets (one to each side) whereas a turret
ship can
direct its firepower to only one target.  This is with the A-batt masses
above.
  
>  So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
reactions -
>  either to the list or direct email (at this stage, please don't send
loads
>  of alternative rules - I'd appreciate just reaction to the above, so
I can
>  gauge feelings on it.)
>  
>  Many thanks!
>  
>  Jon T. (GZG).

It's truly great to have you on the list and be able to contribute to
the
evolution of FT!

Later

Brian