RE: 3 arc cost

> On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 2:20 PM, PCARON [SMTP:Pcaron@cris.com]
wrote:
> > > Should extra arcs take mass, it's not a question of simple
throwing in 
> > > a few more points. It becomes a question of what you can fit in
the hull.
> >
> 
> If I were redesigning the arc mass system...
> 
> I must admit I fail to see why you should pay
> a mass cost for a specific extra arcs
> 
> If you take a WWII battleship turrent as
> a baseline. Most of these had a three 
> arc field or fire, but you payed the one
> off mass cost of the turret once. A
> more fixed mount weapon didn't pay
> for the mass cost of the turret but 
> had a more limited field of fire.
> 
> So I would say any multi-arc weapon 
> pays a single mass cost, which is for
> the machinery to point it into the multiple
> arcs.
> 
> As A beams are bigger than C-B then
> the mass/cost  of the A turrent should be
> significantly greater. 
> 
> Specific backgrounds can relax these rules
> the phaser strips/arrays in STTNG being an
> obvious example.
> 
> sincerely
> tim jones
> --
> Reality is for those who can't cope with Science Fiction.
 
I am not sure as to what you are saying....There are currently 
separate masses for each size of beam weapon weather they shoot in 
multiple arcs or not.  I think this is what you just described unless 
you meant a mass for non-turreted weapons and a different 
mass for turreted weapons turreted weapons. 

How about this.  Have turreted weapons and fixed weapons.  The 
turreted weapons cost more in mass.  It doesn't matter how much the 
weapon can turn.  The size of the mechanism is what is important.  
Fixed weapons are 1 arc weapons.  No turret.  No mechanism for 
turning and so naturally less mass (and cost for that matter).	

Two arc weapon.  Obviously has a mechanism for turning the weapon
around. But something stops it from being able to spin into the
third arc.  Perhaps a superstructure or another turret is in the
way.  It has more mass than the fixed weapon for its added mobility
and costs more to boot.  

The three arc weapon is even better.  Probably not significantly
more in mass than the two arc weapon.  So mass is the same but the
cost would still be more than the 2 arc weapon to reflect the
greater care in designing the ship so that the turret can cover all
three arcs. 

Just my two cents....

John

Somewhere in the world there is defeat for everyone.  Some are 
destroyed by defeat, and some made small and mean by victory.  
Greatness lives in one who triumphs equally over defeat and victory.
		    John Steinbeck -- The Acts of King Arthur and His
Noble Knights