Re: Some more comments to the WeapDef archive

In message <200102192028.VAA17774@d1o960.telia.com>
	  "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Charles Taylor wrote:
> 
> >>Charles's suggestion works... sort of, but his guesses at points
> >>costs are off by about 100% in both cases: getting 2 hull boxes per
> >>Mass is worth 6-7xMass, while getting 1 box per 2 Mass is worth
> >>0xMass (actually it is worth even less, ie. *less* than 0 pts per
> box, >>but I'm not too keen on negative points costs...).
> > 
> >Arrgh! another maths failure!
> 
> Well, you did indicate that your suggested figures were initial
guesses
> only :-) Took me quite a while to work them out too, but I had a
2-year
> head start <g>

Well, that would help :-)
> 
> >>I'm still playtesting my "variable number of hull rows" idea, but so
> >>far it looks reasonable:
> >> 
> >>Instead of giving all ships 4 rows of hull boxes, they can be
> designed
> >>with 3, 4 or 5 rows. 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >Hmm.. that looks promising - reminds me of the Earth Force
> >Sourcebook.
> 
> That's where I got the idea from, yes. Unfortunately the 2-row hulls
> don't work out well :-(

I can imagine, but not as bad as 1-row hulls :-) (thresholds - what are
they?)
> 
> >>Raking fire
> 
[snip raking fire]
> >
> >In general, I think this may be a good example of why we don't have
> >things like raking, sustained, etc. fire modes in Full Thrust :-)
> 
> <g> Glad you saw it yourself so I didn't have to :-)

Well, I remember some of the 'mechanic' based tactics in SFB - and I
only ever played that twice!
On first sight, things like raking, sustained fire etc. look like they
may ad a bit of tactics & atmosphere - but they are very probably not
worth the effort - but thats probably not going to stop anyone :-)

> 
> >>Side-Slip - Common house rule - allows 2+ point turn to be port then
> >>starboard (or opposite). 
> >>[OO: Recommended. Should go into FT3 or FB3 (whichever comes
> >>first), provided I can find a big enough club to bash Jon over the
> head >>with <g>]

Yes, I think the side-slip rule is a very common house rule - popped up
in one of the first games I played.
> >
> >Ow!
> 
> That's why I'll need a club - I don't want to hurt my hands, after
all!
> 
> ...oh, you meant that *Jon* might get hurt? Considering that he has
> survived being aquainted with Mary Gentle for God knows how long, I
> don't think he'll take any lasting harm ;-)

Yes, but we don't want him out of commission too long - or else who will
make the figures/write the books/etc.?
> 
> >>Starburst Attack
> >>[OO: With the fighter re-arming rule in FB2, this has gone from
> >>somewhat unbalanced to very unbalanced. Spending excessive >>amounts
> of EPs is no longer a serious penalty - heck, on several >>occasions
my
> KV fighters have gone Ro'Kah, rearmed, returned to >>the fray, gone
mad
> *again*, rearmed *again*, and had time for a third >>attack - and that
> in battles 7-8 turns in length. If KV fighters can >>rearm this often,
> human fighters can do it too.
> > 
> >I think this should be a special (expensive) fighter type - say a
> >submunition fighter - carrys 3 small submunitions packs (1 beam dice
> >each, range 6 mu), can use them 1 at a time or all at one, the latter
> >consumes all remaning cef - have same effects against ships and
> >fighters - as standard SMP fighters have no other weapons? - cost -
> >dunno? - more than standard fighter I think.
> 
> Somehow simply using Torpedo fighters sounds easier :-/

Yup, but SMP fighters can use their SMPs on other fighters - of cause
these are probably a 'genre' system (specifically anime).
> 
> Later,
> 
> Oerjan Ohlson
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
> 
> "Life is like a sewer.
>   What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> - Hen3ry
>