Prev: Re: FTIII: A Plea to End "Me Too" Firing. Next: Re: FT Armor

Re: FT III Wishlist

From: Tony Wilkinson <twilko@o...>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 06:16:23 -0400
Subject: Re: FT III Wishlist

At 09:49 AM 27-05-97 +0300, Mikko Kurki-Sunio wrote:

>>	   Another idea might be to allow partial armouring. For an
extra 20
>> points say, a ship can armour a number of systems (escorts-1,
crusiers-2,
>> capitals-3). The armoured systemm adds no extra mass but allows that
system
>> to ignore it's first threshold roll. 
>
>That actually follows real warship armoring better than any "overall" 
>armor score. Though I would give it mass. Say:
>
>Internal armor: 20 pts/ 1 mass 
>Internal armor can cover any number of components. When any of the
>covered components fail a threshold check (or are hit with a needle 
>attack), lose the armor instead. Only one armor section can cover each 
>system. Armor does not help against EMP attacks.
>
>Why "any number of systems"? Because the more stuff you put in it, the 
>more likely it is to trade the armor for something less important, like
a 
>single PDAF. You *can* use it to soak the first failed threshold, but
the 
>payoff is probably better if you limit the armor to the components you 
>really can't afford to lose.
>
>The number of armor sections needs to be limited, or Screen-3 ships
cover 
>their generators with a ton of armor and stay nearly invulnerable for 
>much longer.

	I wasn't really thinking about mass, but I do like your idea. My
idea originally came from the armouring schemes of battleships,
particularly
British ones, from the period between the wars when the Naval Treaty was
still mostly in force. The mass should prevent the use of too much
armour
even on behemoths if each system had to purchase an armour section, it
which
case the cost might be better at 5 or 10 points. It might be just
simpler to
say that armour near a screen retards it's preformance dropping them one
level, or killing them completely. 
	I really couldn't see the point for 6 fire arcs which is why I
questioned it. 4 is much easier. One idea for forward fixed weapons
might be
that they use an arc between 11 and 1 on the course gauge. Its not that
much
narrower than the normal fire arc but it can make a big difference for
the
long range weapons.
	Thoughts anyone?

	Tony.
twilko@ozemail.com.au
"I don't fight to be fair,
I fight to win."

Prev: Re: FTIII: A Plea to End "Me Too" Firing. Next: Re: FT Armor