Re: FT: EW

--- Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com> wrote:
> >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
> 
> Sensors, if they are going to affect combat ranges for weapons on a
ship,
> must also have a % based pricing system.

One might also consider paying for high-end EW equipment as a percentage
of the
PV of the whole fleet. One EW ship backing up a cruiser squadron is
useful, but
the same ship providing EW support to a BDN squadron is enhancing the
utility
of a much more expensive fleet. 

=====
Michael Llaneza
see also maserati@flash.net
http://imperialdispatches.editthispage.com/
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal
drugs. 
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent. 
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a
gun. 
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com