Re: FTIII Rules Tryout

Aaron wrote:

> 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.

Nor can you do it with C batteries <g> But yes, the B was the one I was
thinking of. Many of my designs use broadside-mounted B batteries, so it
is
a source of irritation for me - and I never said broadside arcs were
_impossible_ in FTIII, just that FTII made them easier to implement <g>
 
> > FT 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....

You lose that with 60-degree arcs already... I draw an extra arc around
the
turret, marking the field of fire. It seems to work <shrug>

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson

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