RE: FT Ship Generation

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca
Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 3:53 PM
To: GZG List (E-mail)
Subject: FT Ship Generation

A last pre-xmas topic.

There are generations of ship design. One suggestion for how to
represent the progress of tech was non optimal use of space (ie waste
space). Though I think this is a good idea, of itself I don't believe
it is sufficient - that represents strictly the inefficiency of
systems rather than their more primitive capability.

Here's my suggestion:

A five category system
- archaic
- 3rd line
- 2nd line
- current 1st line
- state of the art (or experimental)
<snip>
I think you might have more general effect if you manipulate mass.
The cost in points should remain constant but the (1st line current)
mass is
used for point calculations.
Archaic = each system regires 1.5 times normal mass  2 beam 1s for a
mass of
3
3rd line = each system regires 1.2 times normal mass  5 beam 1s for a
mass
of 6
2nd line = each system regires 1.1 times normal mass  10 beam 1s for a
mass
of 11
1st line current = 100%
state of the art = each system regires .9 of normal mass  10 beam 1s for
a
mass of 9
advanced = each system regires .5 of normal mass  3 beam 1s for a mass
of 2

>Certain items ought to be available only at certain tech levels too.
>Though which and what I haven't thought much abour. Principally
>advanced fighter types, advanced missile types, perhaps level-2
>screens, perhaps ADFC.
I agree
ECM:
<haven't thought enough about it yet.>
Sensors and there counter sensors shuold have a lot of room to seesaw
back
and forth over time