Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

In message <19970228025530.AAA11837@LOCALNAME> James Butler writes:
> 
>	  What I mean is that mass provides a penalty for wider arc
weapons
> (or at least it does the way we play). Without that penalty, I think
players
> would have a nasty tendency to take nothing but three arc weapons. In
fact,
> IIRC that was why we put in Oerjan Ohlson's construction numbers, to
> encourage the use of non-three arc weapon batteries. I was just
wondering if
> cost alone, with cost differing only by a few points, is enough to
encourage
> players to take one-arc weapons.

Now... did I say that cost would be different by only a few points?
After all, any increase in the points spent on weapon arcs would now
affect what you pay for thrust, as well, just as if you'd bought a
bigger hull.

The way I see it, a good starting point for a new, descriptive, points 
system would be to make all beams cost n+(n*arcs).

This would equate one three-arc beam with two one-arc beams of the 
same size, and the former could replace the latter without affecting
any other part of ship design. This occurs to me to be a fair trade.

-- 
David Brewer