Point system ideas (was: RE: 3 arc cost)

Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk wrote:

> 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
I have to agree.

The main objection to paying more points for extra arcs seems
to be that the extra points would not increase the cost of the
ship by enough to act as a deterant - since the mass of the ship
accounts for the bulk of its cost.

I think the problem here is not that points are a bad way to rate
ships, but that the current system rates mass too highly.

What do points represent ? My view is that they (attempt to)
represent the combat utility of a ship under a range of conditions.
(you can never do this perfectly, but thats no reason not to try to
come up with a good system)

So, what effect do the following groups of "systems" have on a
ships combat utility ?

     Offensive systems:
	  contribute directly to a ships effectivness.

     Defensive systems:
	  on their own, these don't add much value to
	  the ship, but they do increase the utility of the
	  offensive systems (by keeping them in play
	  for longer)

     Drives:
	  similar to defensive systems in that they're only
	  really useful if they're moving weapons around.

     FTL:
	  Combat utility varies according to how you see
	  this working, but broadly similar to defensive systems.

     Mass:
	  I've only listed this separatly, because we currently have
	  to buy it as a distinct system. However, I really consider
	  this to be a defensive system, since Mass provides damage
	  track boxes - although the effectiveness of this as a defence
	  is limited by the number and distribution of the threshold
	  checks.

This suggests that we really have two classes of item: weapons and
things
that enable you to get more use out of weapons (which I'll call defences
for the moment).

To me this suggests that the point cost of a ship should be the total
value
of
its weapon systems multiplied by the total value of its defensive
systems.

This would allow a more descriptive system, which simply describes how
a ship is in combat: you can build ships with 50 A bats but only one
damage
box, or with one A bat and 50 damage boxes. Or you could layer a
construction
system on top of this which could re-attach mass values to equipment.

What do you think ?

Alun.