SV: 3 arc cost

[snip]

> 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. 

Or the rationalisation I use: Due to the need to design the ship so all
those three-arc turrets don't have to blast through one another (eg, on
succesively higher pylons - like many of those WWI and WWII battleships,
or
why not Kafer warships), the turrets will actually be more massive. Add
in
some added 3D targetting, and you suddenly have to be able to rotate
your
3-arc turret through much wider angles than the 2-arc one :-)

Oerjan Ohlson

"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry