Re: Maximizing ship designs

>At 07:52 AM 4/1/97 +0100, Jon at GZG wrote:
>
>>Exactly, hence the intention to rate drive power as a % of mass in the
>>revised system.
>
>I strongly suggest that Jon re-examine the issue of the % Mass
application
>issue.  I have a couple disagreements with this concept:
>  First, It adds a level of complexity to ship design that is
unneccessary
>to the game.  I believe the problems with this can be solved with a
newer
>Thrust Efficiency chart that places more data points besides the
current
>18/36/100 Mass ones.

Our playtest results so far (with in-house and external teams) don't
suggest that it is in any way more complicated; in fact, most of them
liked
the extra freedom it gave them in designs, and felt it was more logical
and
intuitive than the FTII system.

>  Second,  It will drive the game into the arms of the big ships. 
Since a
>large ship has more room to place long range or area affect weapons, it
can
>afford to do this and pay for high maneuverability, thus creating more
of
>the Kravak effect, but now in capital ships.

Sorry, but I maintain this is even MORE likely to happen under the
original
construction system; a thrust 8 big ship has the same weapons space (and
the same mass) as a thrust 2 one. If costing drives in Mass (as well as
points), you have to tradeoff between thrust and weapons space, which
doesn't happen in the FTII system. Please note that if we are changing
the
system AT ALL, then we'll probably take the opportunity to juggle ALL
the
factors (weapon mass, ship sizes etc.) to balance everything as well as
we
can - so if you want to put everything on your capital ship that it has
under the FTII system, you may well find you don't have ROOM left for
more
than thrust-2 or so. You can go for a zippy high-g tincan with minimal
weapons, or a hulking ironclad gunbus that steers like an arthritic
hippo.
Or, of course, you can build something nice and sensible in between...
:) 

Jon (GZG)