RE: [FT] RG Damage Vs. Armour

>Now back to the show - We can not use Range or 'to-hit' 
>modifiers, so that leaves weight, points or damage to even out the
classes. 

I'd accept the to-hit mod recently proposed for the sRG against
Iarmor. It is however not the general case against FB armor, so OKish.
Generally the KV won't be firing at each other so we can ignore it.

>where serval people - wanted to replace them with massed Class2s'.. Or
>what about the ship that carried 10+ SMLs' - No matter how 
>good we cover the rules, someone is going to play with massed weapons, 
>instead of a few larger ones.

Yep they are.
The design goal is to eliminate 'where possible' the advantage of massed

lower class weapons. Some players like to design solely within the
envelope 
of the design system (even if unofficial stop-gap until FB2 is
published) to 
WIN (at any cost). 

It can also cause all sorts of religious wars along the lines of 'its
cheese' 
no 'its the rules', 'bring and battle' etc. so its worth at least trying
to 
fix it.

The sRG does this by the higher probability on long range shots
hitting and killer damage at close range. This is its main attraction
along with the single roll.

IMO the KV armor thing looks reasonably fixed. And we have the costs
sorted too though they seem to have changed in the turmoil, Schoon?

<Wed  02/12/98 schoon wrote in thread: Kra'Vak Railguns Number-Crunched>
I'd be game for those increases. They would result in:

Class 1 Railgun (2-arc fire) - 1 MASS
Class 2 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 3 MASS
Class 3 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 6 MASS
POINT COST = 5 per MASS
<-->

<Fri 04/12/98 schoon wrote in thread: Armour & RG - again>
Class 1 Railgun (2-arc fire) - 1 MASS
Class 2 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 2 MASS
Class 3 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 4 MASS
POINT COST = 5 per MASS
<-->

Given that the *higher* mass (1,3,6) were for fixing the 
damage / mass / cost problems in thread 'Kra'Vak Railguns 
Number-Crunched' we should stick with them?

-= tim jones =-