Prev: Re: Howdy! Next: Re: [FTFB] Fleet Book Kra'Vak

Re: [FTFB] Fleet Book Kra'Vak

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:01:46 -0800
Subject: Re: [FTFB] Fleet Book Kra'Vak

>     You are correct, I was not thinking in terms of 'civilian' ships.
>However, the other side of the coin is: What if this is right?
>What if the 'K' use a 'weak' but armored hull for the transport ships
>assign to the support duties of the fleet and transportation services.

I see your point, but I would still vote for the option that allows for
more individuality. I suppose it depends on whether you think the "K"
everything or not.

>     Reasons:
>     1) The 'To Hit' falls off with range, this is not true w/beams.
>     2) As the 'To hit' increases the ability to keep the enemy in
>	 the 'effecive area' decreases.  (with 1 arc type 3)
>      Note: the actual solution to this problem is to buy massive
>      numbers of type 1 railguns (since they have the same range and
>      to hit as the type 3, and a larger fire arc.)  (The same is
>      true of beams, but the best is the type 2 in this case.)
>     3) The damage 'reroll' rule makes it highly desireable to
>	 throw more dice.   This will generate more 6s, and therefor
>	 more rerolls, and therefor more damage.   JTL

Excellent point here. Matthew has me convinced that the re-roll option
railguns is probably not the best idea, and in light of this, I'm
to agree.

The problem might be solved by varying the effective range brackets - as
Matthew suggested - to some multiple of the railgun class (he suggested
4/6/8, and I countered with 3/6/9).

>     Actually, keep up the good work, it will take some time to
>work out the bugs (it's a Joke).

I actually like criticism, so I'm pleased to get great input like this.
I'll get back to work...


Prev: Re: Howdy! Next: Re: [FTFB] Fleet Book Kra'Vak