Re: Descriptive design system idea

In message
<Pine.SUN.3.91N2x.970311174012.18152H-100000@byse.nada.kth.se> Oerjan
Ohlson writes:
> 
> On second thoughts, now it is later. Using the beam batteries as a
measuring 
> stick, I don't think the Needle beam is as much worth as a three-arc B

> battery, 

I don't really like needle beams at all. Mounted in ones and twos
they don't seem like a good deal. Mounted in groups of fifteen+, 
they start to look better.

> nor is the Pulse Torp worth a 4-arc a battery (...I think I'd 
> put the PT at 12 or 16 points, but then I use MASS 4 PTs anyway...). 

You may be right, but I think specialised weapons like PTT's and
needles always deserve to be payed for above the odds to prevent
them becoming too ordinary. PTT's are weapons for specialised
ships to be built around as Torpedo Ship Destroyers. You can always
save points by skimping on the damage track...

> As 
> for the point defence systems... well, is the ADAF worth that much? It

> depends on your opponent's fleets, of course, but 12?

Again, you're probably right. I've been very conservative in 
writing this idea up. It's so very difficult not to write an idea
like this up to include all the little house rules you like. PDAF
could easily be ditched for multipurpose C-batteries. ADAF could be 
replaced with a specialised firecon. Scott Field had replaced 
needle beams with a specialised firecon for needle attacks with
regular beams in his PBeM and I rather like that idea...

Etcetera, etcetera. The sad truth may be that any new points
system will never get properly tested because all the game 
mechanics who would do the testing have rewritten FT into such a
Byzantine state that the testing of one might be meaningless to 
another.

Anyhow, I'm interested in what values you would ascribe to the 
systems you mention above, and to all the systems I missed out. I 
don't think it is too necessary to consider the implications of a
degenerate gamesman's mind.

For ADAF maybe mass-2 or 8 points. Swapping two PDAF for one ADAF
seems like a fair trade.

> Question about the "descriptive" costs for the FT/MT ship designs: did
you
> include the 8 pts for fighter bays (not fighter squadrons) and damage 
> control parties? 

I tried. I ran the numbers in something of a hurry, err... that's
48 for them, plus 16 for that, plus 36 for them, plus... did I add
them already?... start again... How many damage points are there 
on that track?...

> I can't get the Superdreadnought to fit into a mere 577 
> points, but then I didn't have too much time to check my calculations.

I've recomputed it to 609 + 24 for fighters, so my arithmetic was 
off. It's probably still off... 64 (A's) + 16 (PDAF) + 36 (shields)
+ 24 (firecons) + 16 (bays) + 160 (damage) + 24 (DCP's) = 340 ^ 1.1
(that is 1 + (2/50) + 3/50) = 609.

Hmmm... if the idea actually took off someone is bound to write a
spreadsheet for it...

-- 
David Brewer