Re: FT-Battleships

> As an alternative idea, we could 'nick' the Vree turret concept from
B5
> wars - and modify accordingly -
>
> thus:
>
> Turret (Class 1 to lots)
>
Snip bits
>
> Your example using this system:
>
> Mass=300
> Cost=1090 (if fitted with K5 bats)
> DP=60
> Armour=10
> FTL=30
> Drive (T=4)=60
> FC x4
> Screens x2
> PDS x6
> 5-arc Turrets Class 22 (x4)=12 mass each.
> Each Turret contains:
>   K-5 x2 (22 MASS)
>
> Ok, your version is cheaper - maybe my turrets should be cheaper?
>
> Charles
>
My version requires a less powerful hull (exchange hull DP for turret
DP),
so cost is probably better if mine is cheaper. Also, the example given
above, does it add upto 300?

>Any system?  *snicker* Wave Gun? *snicker*  Serously, though should
some
>of the missle systems be turreted?
>
Why not?
>
>What happens if the turret is needle beamed?  (Can it be needle beamed?
>Suddenly I'm drawing a blank on that.)
>
>The only contraint on the MASS/COST I can think of is this: A Turret
with a
>specific one arc weapon should cost more than the weapon expanded to
include
>those arcs if possible.
>
>I.E. a single turreted class 3 beam should cost more than a 3 arc class
3
beam.
>
>Mike
I`d say all the above are valid, although the needle beam would disable
the
turret, not he weapons fitted within it. A needle beam would freese the
turret into the arc it was facing when it was attacked. The turret idea
was
to allow limited arc weapons greater arc coverage with coresponding
vulnerabilities, as my original idea gave the chance of destroying
weapons/turret and leave the hull undammaged, or destroy the hull, which
is
weaker than nesercerry (wheres the spell check on this?). Charles
version
gives you a extra system, but within the normal hull threshold checks,
which
would probably be too powerful/not vulnerable enough to make up for the
advantages it gives you. Although it is open to discussion.

BIF

"Yorkshire born, yorkshire bred,
strong in arms, thick in head"