Prev: Re: The Kra'Vak Next: RE: The Kra'Vak

Re: [FT extra rules]

From: "Richard Slattery" <richard@m...>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:19:50 +0100
Subject: Re: [FT extra rules]

On 7 Oct 98, at 9:48, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, John and Roxanne Leary wrote:
> >	 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.
> Well, it's been proposed before, and I see two problems with it:
> a) There are no strict classes in FB, and re-intoducing such will just
> bring back the "breakpoint designs" from old FT.

That is my main problem with it too.

> b) The FT beam resolution adapts very badly to dice modifiers. +/-
1 is a
> HUGE modifier because the only way to reasonably assign it is to each
> every dice.

Well, my idea was for adding or subtracting a whole dice to a 
battery, and only at the longer ranges... but that's a pretty corase 
method too.

> IMHO, if you want to fidget like this, it's much better to adjust
> "effective range to target", e.g. small fast ships are counted to be
> farther away than they really are.

Hmm... I like this.. range bracket modifiers are far more easily 
scaled... and it's possible to give benefits from having very 
manueverable ships under beam or torpedo fire... i.e. ships with 
thrust of 6 or more 4" range change, 8 or more, 6".... hmmmm.

Richard Slattery
Teeth extracted by the latest methodists. 
     Hong Kong dental advertisement

Prev: Re: The Kra'Vak Next: RE: The Kra'Vak