RE: Re;Re-Reenforced hulls

Hmmm. Reinforced hulls could exagerate the difference in point value
between
smaller ships and larger ships (something that I think needs to be
reduced).

I like the simple 11/11/9/9 style you suggested the best. A
reinforcement
would move 1 hull box from both the 3rd and 4th rows to the 1st and 2nd
rows. A minimum of 1 hull box must be left in each row. Cost for EACH
reinforcement would be 8 (in addition to the normal hull box cost).

Example:
A ship with 10/10/10/10 would have a hull cost of 80.
Reinforced to 11/11/9/9, hull cost would be 88.
Reinforced to 12/12/8/8, hull cost would be 96.
Upgraded to 11/11/11/11 would have a hull ocst of 88.

So a reinforcement cost the same as adding another row of hull boxes,
but
have no mass.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker [SMTP:s_schoon@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:59 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	Re: Re;Re-Reenforced hulls
> 
> >  My proposal doesn`t actually increase the number
> >of hull dp, just redistrebutes them, making it harder to get the
first
> >threshold check, but each following hull check requires less dammage
per
> row
> >(although more if counting from the first row).
> 
> Oh I get that bit. What I was saying is that 16 DP in the first row 
> and 7 in the lower rows is excessive. It is taking TOO much advantage 
> of a mechanic foible.
> 
> Using your ship of 16/9/8/7 = 40 Hull
> 
> I would say that a scheme of 12/12/8/8 or 11/11/9/9 might be more
> realistic.
> 
> However, a GENERAL system could be developed, similar to the Phalon 
> armor system that would vary the cost of the hull according to where 
> it was put. Such as(pulling numbers out of my tuckus):
> 
> Every box moved to the first row, POINT COST = 8
> Every box moved UP to the second row, POINT COST = 6
> Every box moved UP to the third row, POINT COST = 4
> All MASS remains the same.
>