Re: 3 arc cost

John Leary wrote:
> 
> Greetings,
>      I think that all involved in the mass/arc discussion are
> stuck in WWII with the big gun battleship.

	This is true enough, however, almost all table top (that is in
two
dimensional) games involving "Fleets" of anything is going to be based
on the WWII model.
	Besides, paint the table blue, scratch FTL and the obvious SF
stuff
(like Wave guns, Nova Cannons, and shields) then Kazam! you have a
pretty good WWII navel simulation.

>  The (personal)
> problem I have with this is that our ships are armed with
> (charged) particle beams and the turrets being talked about
> are (more than likely) a manipulated energy field thru a
> series of surface mounted emitters.	All of the directional
> changes would be handled thru different levels of energy
> in the various emitters to change target and control the
> field for focus (range) changes.

	Whoa! Star Trek Physics.  Is that a quote right out of the ST
writers
guide? The nice "look" of the Enterprise multi-emitter would take an
order of magnitude more energy than a traditional turret.  Energy
radiates from a source, it doesn't flow.  Adjacent emitters would not
have any effect on each other.	Sure you can affect the path of the
radiant particles with magnetic fields or (reflective surfaces) but the
strength of the field would likely crush any ship near it.  I would
rather see all that energy dumped into my targets.  Put the energy (all
of it) in the bottom of a reflective cone (or tube) and point it at the
target. Simple. Now you could make a lot of low powered mini turrets and
point them all at the same spot on the target. Think of 10,000
flashlights on spindles.  The first one is harmless.  10 starts to burn
your eyes. 100 is painful. 1000 is blinding. etc.

Admittedly we are taking about a SF system in which energy is unlimited
and magnetic field could be used in the manner suggested.  But the ST
motto "I don't care how it works -- as long a it LOOKS cool" needs to
stay on TV.

>      The wave and nova are the big guns of FT and are always
> left out of the discussion, these would correspond to the 11 to
> 18 inch guns of the battleships.   This means that the 'A'
> moves to the cruiser range of guns (5.5 to 9.1") along with the
> 'B'.
>      The 'C' is all of the smaller and DD size dual purpose
> weapons.

	I disagree (Who would Guess):

	The wave and nova guns have no "real world" match.  The closest
that
might qualify is a tactical nuclear missile or a tomahawk with a
bomblett dispenser.  The "A" battery is the equivalent to the 18" Gun. 
Other deck mounded guns match "B" & "C" batteries.  The "C" batteries
are a perfect match for the dual purpose guns if used against fighters.
The smaller guns (which were often assigned an anti-fighter roll)
correspond to PDAF and ADAF.  

>      Well, after having typed the above rubbish, perhaps a
> suggestion/option is in order:
> 1)  Handle the perceived problem with a points change in the
>     a battery.

	Ok. Bump up the cost of an "A" battery by a couple of points
then
rework all the ships. But that is the original point of the thread.

> 2)  Change all beam batteries, (A/B/C) to only one die and
>     allow the B to penetrate one and the A to penetrate two
>     screens without penelty.	 Possibly change the base damage
>     for beams to: A=3, B=2, and C=1, in addition to the
>     penetration.

	Ok.  Reducing the dice of the batteries will result in longer
combats. 
The penetration will make buying anything less than an "A" battery even
more undesirable.  That is until people start leaving shields out of
their designs since they become obsolete.  Then a fast ship with a lot
of "C" batteries becomes the optimal design.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The above comments are not intended as a personal attack.  They are
simply and expression of disagreement.