Re: Fw: Weapons for Newtonian based FTIII

I'm chopping this heavily trying to narrow it down to the main points.

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:

>   On a supership you could, pretty easily.  And I think spending 30
> mass might be worth it for a device that provides more or less
> complete AF/AM protection for your ship and any ship within 6 (or 3?)
> inches.

Hmmm.... I don't use superships, but if I did I'd intend them to be
SUPERships. And the BMDS only delays fighters, it doesn't stop them.
It would give missile protection... but worth the price? If you feel
it's overpowered, allow it only to be used when the ship's velocity is
0.

>   Sure.  It's probably not a good idea to play with people whose ideas
> on how the universe works differ from yours anyway.  

More like: I can live with scenario limitations if they're given 
beforehand. And it helps if they have a semi-plausible explanation...
but 
if the GM decides to overrule my tactic in the middle of the game 
"because he says so", I don't think I'm overreacting if I feel a bit 
pissed off.

Now for the real issue:

>   OK, once more I think we need to consider that there are two
> different problems being considered here.  Attacking without ever
> getting in weapons range of the defender is a thorny issue, and one
> that I don't have an answer for.  

Agreed. No one seems to.

> Attacking with weapons that exploit
> the turn-based nature of the game is a seperate issue and can, to an
> extent, be countered with things like sand clouds that affect areas
> and cause damage during the movement phase.

That is true... Personally I feel it's a bit gamesmanshiplike... but as
I 
neither like spending time in bad games nor do I have much choice in 
opponents, I like to consider all possibilities before they end up 
spoiling an evening's fun.

FT was never designed to handle three-digit speeds, even though they are

theoretically possible. The normal weapons become useless at these 
speeds, so they're not really a problem... but some of the newly
invented 
ones may be.

As for the meteor bit... If we were really nitpicking, a meteor
in FT is both indestructible and deals out infinite damage regardless of

collision velocity (FT, p. 26). But that's really cheap...

>   As for your argument that a volume is much bigger than an area,
> you're right, but if it stops .9c missiles being launched from the
> other side of the galaxy and hitting my station on the same turn, I'll
> learn to live with it.

Even if it gives a way to conduct no-way-to-evade, infinite-damage 
enveloping attacks?

I've no problem with sand clouds and their ilk, *if* they're purely 
defensive. I just think taking their offensive capabilities to the limit

can kill the game.

>   I never said you didn't say it.  I just said I agree with it.
> That's probably bad form on the net!

Sorry... maybe I should cut my caffeine intake...

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |