RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives

You forgot FCS, Sensors, and cargo/passenger spaces.

For limited number of loss-to-threshold, I would suggest making it
simple
such as Most massive to least massive systems.

If not, I would suggest:
1. Sensors (FCS, ADFC, Sensors, ECM) & Screens (including Vapor Shroud,
Cloak, etc).
2. Engines (FTL, MD)
3. Bays (Fighter, Missile, Passenger/Cargo, Drone Wombs)
4. Large Weapons (over mass 3) and Power Centers
5. Small Weapons (mass 3 and smaller including PDS)
6. Core Systems (if threshold level indicates).

Here is my PSB for the above. The larger the system is, the greater
chance
it has to be damaged. Sensors and Screens would be spread/networked
throughout the ship. The cutter beam would sever connections until new
ones
could be routed. Engines are just plain large targets. Bays are the next
largest items (if not the more massive). Weapons are the next largest.
The
core systems have some additional protection, so should be less
vulnerable
than other systems.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net   
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Apter [SMTP:andya@speechsolutions.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:21 PM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	RE: [FT] Cutter Beam Alternatives
> 
> How about if the beam caused a threshold check at the level of hull
> penatration for only one type of system-- role one dice:
> 
> 1. Propulsion systems ftl and maneuver drives checks.
> 2. non missile Heavy weapons weapon systems of mass over 2 check.
> 3. non missile Light Weapons systems of mass of 1 or 2 check.
> 4. Shields and shrouds.
> 5. Fighter bays,  MT missiles, Slavo Missiles, plasmas, pod lanchers.
> 6. core systems if penatration adaquate.
> 
>