Re: [FT]Variable Fire Arcs...

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Donald Hosford wrote in a HTML-ized post:
>
> >>This is an ascii text file I typed up on my laptop.  It has some
> drawings in it.>>
>
> Hm... HTML =|= ASCII. Fortunately the text appeared in my reply, but
> when I looked at your post directly it showed 18 kB of pure emptiness.
>
> The second attempt was only 15 kB of pure emptiness :-/
>

Display it useing a non-variable font.	I use a Dos word processor, it
makes doing tables and forms easy.

I haven't yet figured out html tables.

>
> [badly scrambled ASCII graphics snipped]
>
> >>Buying a weapon:
>
> 1) Add up the "Arc Values".
>
> 2) Index the Arc Value, and Weapon on the table.  Result is the mass
of
> the weapon.
>
> Weapon Mass Table  (Numbers in ()'s are original values from the Fleet
> Book.)
>				  Arc Value
> Weapon	      2  3  4  5  6  7	8  9 10 11 12
>
> >>Class 2 Beam	1     -    (2)	  -	-    (3)>>
>
> Balance problem here. Single-arc (60-degree) Class-2 batteries are
> *very* good if they only cost 1 Mass in my experience :-( (I have
> several models with medium-sized guns in fixed-forward mountings, so
> I've tried reduced-Mass Class-2s quite a bit. I wouldn't go below Mass
> 1.333 for a single-arc Class-2 - 1.5 seems to play OK for a 120-degree
> broadside arc... but both of these require Mass fractions, and I don't
> want that at all.)
>

The only other way to balance this, is to entirely redo the weapon
tables....Another major change...Oy!
I could change the class2 beam 2 arc value mass to 2, and assume that
the
mass of the aiming gear is trivial below a certain size.

> >>Class 3 Beam       (4)   (5)   (6)	 (7)   (8)  (10)>>
>
> A 6-arc Class-3 beam is 9 Mass in FB1, not 10.

Oops.  Thanks for spotting that.

>
>
> >>Submunitions pack  (1)    1     1	  1	1     2>>
>
> No way. In this way a 5-arc sub-pack (which is very nearly identical
to
> a 6-arc sub-pack in capabilities, except when you don't maneuver)
costs
> exactly as much as a 1-arc sub-pack (which is quite a bit harder to
hit
> with). Balanced, you say?
>

Balanced?  (hehehehe...sorry for the laughter)	The table needs
adjustment.  What I assumed when I wrote it:

Any weapon may be mounted on an aiming mechanizium.
 There are three basic ways to aim a weapon:
   A) Fixed-mount  (aim the ship)  Great for anything that is
maneuverable
enough, or for weapons that require a huge amount of the ship's mass.
(Deathstar superlaser is one example.  Fighter weapons are another.)
   B) Turreted-mount  (Slap the weapon on a "Turntable")  This mounts
the
entire weapon above the hull.
 This means that the bigger the weapon, the better it is protected, the
larger and more powerfull the aiming mechanizium must be. (think ww2
battleship weapons)
   C) Nozzle-mount  (put the generator below the hull, and place the
beam
emitter in a small turret)  Only the beam emitter would actually stick
up
above the hull.  Great for energy beam weapons, missle launchers, ect. 
The
means the turret gear is very small.

>
> >>Needle Beam        (2)    -     2	  -	-     3>>
>
> Same comment as for sub-packs.
>
> >>Nova Cannon       (20)   25    30	 35    40    45>>
>
> The NC is a supposed to be a spinal mount. 'Course, I suppose you
> *could* mount the keel of your ship in a turret if you really want
> to...
>
> >>  NO ship may carry NO MORE than 2 weapons with 12 arc value! >>
>
> and
>
> >>(A note...never tell someone that something isn't possible...they
> will often prove you wrong the moment you turn your back...8D)>>
>
> Which John Leary promptly did  <G>
>
> >>
> (A note to Jon (GZG):  It isn't possible to abuse these arcs by buying
> all 360 degree weapons...First the weapons would be very large, so a
> ship couldn't carry more than a few.
> >>
>
> It is of course quite legal to build all-360-degree-weapon designs
> using the FB1 design system. The official NAC carrier designs are
> examples of this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Oerjan Ohlson
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
>
> "Life is like a sewer.
>   What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> - Hen3ry

Please note:  The system has recieved Very little Playtest... How much
can
one person playtest something and still recieve some good data?  Or get
board? :)

This is why I submitted it here...The more minds are concidering it, the
better the resulting rules...

Thanks for the comments.

Donald Hosford