Re: FTIII Rules Tryout

Excerpts from FT: 10-Feb-98 Re: FTIII Rules Tryout by Allan
Goodall@sympatico. 
> >OTOH, broadside arcs are easier to implement
> >in FTII than in the (current, non-finished) FTIII rules. The best
(for 
> >me) would be to have 8 arcs instead, or to allow 90-degree arcs to be

> >"shifted" up to 45 degrees.

Hafta disagree with you, Oerjan.  It's easy enough to take 2-arc
batteries as your broadsides... though you can't do that with B-batts,
which is mildly disappointing.

> =46T is a miniatures game. There is no real reason, other than
> simplicity, to have fixed firing arcs. Why not allow for multiple
> configurations of firing arcs, especially if the "no firing through
> the rear arc" rule is no longer used?

IMO, because the math could get pretty horrendous.  How would you
correlate 60 and 90 degree arcs?  Or the EFSB front/rear 60, sides 120? 
(Though that's essentially 60 degree arcs....)	I suppose you could make
*30* degree arcs as a base, but then keeping track of what's facing
where would become a bit of a hassle.  You could center an arc around a
'time' (i.e., arc 12 is 15 degrees to either side of dead ahead), but
you'd lose the simplicity of the symbols on the ship status sheet....

		    Aaron Teske
		    Mithramuse+@cmu.edu