Re: [FT extra rules]

Richard Slattery wrote:
> 
> On 6 Oct 98, at 22:34, Alex & Andrew wrote:
> 
> > Richard Slattery <richard@mgkc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Possible Ship size effects on combat.
> >	Because the ships are based on mass (or volume), could you use,
say, the
> > cube root of this to simulate size (or length, width and height)?
> >	Or, for real miniatures, use their length (in Inches/cm/mm) as
the
> > modifier, suitably scaled? Long miniatures being easier to hit on
the side,
> > but hard to hit on the end? While cube-like (ST:TNG Borg cube) being
equally
> > hard to hit from any direction.
> >
> 
> Well... it's facing surface area that matters, so it's a bit more
> complicated, but I wanted to add the option but keep it simplified
> as is traditional with full thrust.
> Measuring the width and height of a ship and multiplying it up, and
> then factoring it is a bit further than I wanted to go.
> I chose a (sort) of tripling of sizes and bands of tonnage because
> that sort of reflects a doubling in surface area of a facing.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Richard Slattery	       richard@mgkc.demon.co.uk
> I like a friend better for having faults that one can talk about.
>      William Hazlitt
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guys,
     Just to keep the discussion alive, try a VERY simple solution.
Escorts are -1 (to hit) targets.
Cruisers are 0 (to hit) targets.
Capitals are +1 (to hit) targets.
Superships over 100+ mass are either +1 or +2, as you like it.

Just a thought,
John L.