Re: 3 arc cost

Various comments by a number of people,

> > > > 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.
> > >

> > 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.
> >

> 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).
> 

John,
     I basiclly agree with your thoughts, I dont think that will
change anything, but I do agree.
     Perhaps what is needed is to consider the shape of the 
ship to decide the number of 3/2/1 arc weapons systems on board.
Or perhaps limit the number of three arc systems by mass of the 
ship?	
     At present the 'A' is simply not that much better than 3
'C' batteries at short range to justify an increase in mass.
(Caution: Big Guess follows) Or perhaps I should ask, is one
three arc 'A' better than 12 one arc 'C's.
     The one game I was in with something close to the new
mass rules was a really extended battle with ships of mass
80 to 160 in the majority.  The mass increse of the ships 
coupled with the reduction in firepower made it a five hour
battle.

Bye for now,
John L.