RE: Large mass adjustments, was Re: [FT] F***ters

Stilt said:
>I think the whole idea is just whack-a-ding-hoy, frankly.  As you
observed
in a spot that I snipped, carriers don't at all get an advantage for
larger
ships to speak of, and the proposed solutions here have the effect of
actually making smaller carriers _better_ 

If you go back and read the whole discussion in the archives, you'll see
that if fighter bays are priced as empty space for these purposes, then
the
price of fighters will need to be increased to compensate.  this seems
only
reasonable--can a carrier without fighters take on an equal mass
dreadnought?

>What I would much prefer would be some form of system where any given
hit
you put on a ship has a certain chance to take down a system as
"collateral"
damage, and find a way to make the probability about the same across any
size of ship.  The trick would be to find the exact probability of a
system
loss that would allow a larger ship with more systems to lose those
systems
at the same proportion as a smaller ship with fewer systems, without
unduly
complicating either the ship design process or the damage assessment
phases
of the game.

One way to do that would be vertical damage.  You can either take the
damage across (normal) or down (eg reroll damage might apply
vertically). 
You check for system loss when you finish a row or column.  One
difficulty
is that small ships often don't have to check for thresholds, they just
die.  Another difficulty if figuring out which systems to check for
vertical damage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .