Re: [FT] Proposal - Weapons Design System Concept

Sorry 'bout that; troubles with the new mail program... This got sent 
rather prematurely.
I don't have time to re-type it right now, unfortunately - will try to
get 
it done tomorrow.

>Charles Taylor wrote:
>
>> > The term "total cost", which I use rather extensively below, is the

>> cost of
>> > the system itself [Mass * (Cost/Mass)], the system's fraction of
the 
>> ship's
>> > engines (start with thrust-4 Human engines and FTL), and the hull
to hold
>> > both the system and the engine bitz.
>> >
>> > Here goes:
>> >
>> > >Range: Increase or Decrease range bands, however large ranges
(>48mu)
>> > >should be discouraged (probably very small ranges as well).
>> >
>> > Range bands increased by 50% = double the total cost
>>
>>I'm considering an additional factor: if the maximum range is
increased
>>by 12mu or more, then the total cost should be not less than double
>>that of the original system (double for each increase of 12mu).
>>
>>For example: A 1-arc Class-3 Beam has its range increased by 50% to
>>18/36/54mu - 'total cost' of standard B-3 is 12 (B-3) + 20% x 4 x 2
>>(added cost of thrust 4 engine) + 10% x 4 x 2 (added cost of FTL) + 4
x
>>130% (added cost of hull) = 19.6 (did I get that right?)
>
>
>
>>'Total cost' of long-range B-3 is therefore 39.2, maximum range is
>>increased by +18mu, more than +12mu, but less than +24mu - so this is
>>ok, but I'm tempted to add a further surcharge for taking the range
over
>>48mu :-)
>
>IME the 18mu-band B3 is quite
... [snip]

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry