Re: [FT] A quick survey question

In a message dated 97-02-28 16:39:22 EST, you write:

> Here's a quick poser to help me consider the relative value of
>  ship components.
>  
>  Suppose that in my novel ship design system the following three
>  options can be fitted to a cruiser (6-6-6 damage boxes, 1 screen,
>  2 firecons, 3 PDAF, FTL, Thrust 4) with no difference in points
>  cost.
>  
>  - Option one is to have 6 one-arc A-batteries.
>  - Option two is to have 4 two-arc A-batteries.
>  - Option three is to have 3 three-arc A-batteries.
>  

I use this system already (A-Batt 1 arc=2mass, 2arc=3mass, 3arc=4mass)

>  (Which arcs are covered is your choice.)
>  
>  Which would you consider better value?
>
In using this system (probably have used it for 10 or more games), I've
found
the three to be of approximately equal value.  The choice of which set
to
mount depends entirely on your fleet design philosophy.
  
>  I'd appreciate it greatly if you spent a moment to send me your
>  answer (1, 2 or 3) at: david@westmore.demon.co.uk. 
>  
>  Any and all commentry that you have on your answer is very welcome 
>  too. How would your answer be affected by allowing fire through 
>  rear arcs? Suppose that you had only one firecon? How many three-
>  arc B-batteries would you trade for the above armament?
>  
Adding rear arc fire would not make that much difference.  Even when it
is
allowed, firing opportunities to the rear are not that common, so I'd
not
waste many batteries in that direction.  One of the real benefits of
rear arc
fire is denying the blind spot to fighters, which are nimble enough to
get
into the rear and stay there.  If the above cruiser had only one FC I'd
bring
the contractor up on charges of misuse of government funds :).	I've
been
playing with the mass of B-batteries for 1/2/3 arcs at masses 1/1.5/2. 
This
gives a 2:1 B-battery to A-Battery and seems to give B's a reason to
live.
 We've seen a number of ships appear sporting large arrays of
B-batteries.  

Later

Brian