Re: FT: EW

On 10-Apr-00 at 23:56, GBailey@aol.com (GBailey@aol.com) wrote:
> Just modifying the effective range without die rolls is a good
> idea.  We should look at FB1 ships not having sensors &
> jammers as a good thing.  This means we can throw out
> the MT stuff and do it differently.  Besides, if the enemy
> doesn't have jammers, and sensors cannot improve our
> chances beyond what the normal FCs do, then why have 
> those expensive components?
> 
> I'm not sure about sensors, but the current MT jammers
> are out of line for effecting combat.  A small ship with an
> MT jammer pays a higher percentage cost than a large
> ship for the same effect.
> 
> So if we're going to have jammers that affect combat, then
> they too should be based on a % of the ship.	To go with
> MT terminology, costs would be some multiple (say x10?):
> Enhanced jammer, mass 5%, +6" range
> Superior Jammer, mass 10%, +12" range

I like the floating scale better.  When you are toe to toe with
your opponent you shouldn't have much penalty no matter what
he has in the way of jammers.  (Flashback to a small child telling
me he was going to put on his jammers because he had to go to bed)

Roger