Re: FT-Forts

----- Original Message -----
From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <s_schoon@pacbell.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: FT-Forts

>
> Just for simplicity's sake, I'd say that they must pay for MD1 for
> station-keeping, power generation, etc.
>
> I'd also say that you can set virtually any rotation on the base that
> you like, but it cannot be changed during the course of a game.
>

I agree with the second, but the first changes them from a stationary
fort
into a mobile non-FTL ship.

> >The second idea is a bit more difficult to balance (ok, it probably
> >doesn`t).
>
> You're right on that one.
>

Hey, it was a senario specific idea we used it for <G>. And I did say it
didn`t balance.

> 1) Armor may be free, but hollowing ISN'T. Pay 2 NPV per MASS
excavated.

Yup, that is what I said with-Asteroid forts, are built just like normal
forts, except that you only pay the basic hull cost on the equipment
added,
(note the basic hull cost).

> 2) The free armor is 4 MASS per point of protection (I feel that even
> 2 or 3 is too low).
>

All depends on what the asteroid is made out of, I suppose that you
could
have different armour rates for different compositions.

BIF

PS-Another thought is that if using multi layered armour, make the
armour
layers free, but for every layer of armour above the first, the cost of
the
basic hull goes up by x1 (ie-a 3 layer armour makes the basic hull cost
x4).
This could represent the cost of digging the systems/equipment/weapons
in
deeper into the asteroid. You would also have to have a rule about the
amount of armour in each layer permisable (say half the layer below
it?).