Prev: Re: 2300 AD Next: Re: Galactica 2003

Re: [FT] ESG conversion

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:52:05 +0100
Subject: Re: [FT] ESG conversion

Lachlan Atcliffe wrote:

>>As far as I can see the ESG's main effect is roughly that of a
>Sounds like a good reason to take the higher cost right there... >.<

"The higher cost" in question being Mass 4/Cost 12. This - due to the
engine and hull costs incurred by its larger mass - is very similar to
cost of three scatterguns, but unlike the ESG the three scatterguns can 
fire all three of their D6s in one single turn and are thus considerably

more effective than the ESG against massed missile and/or fighter

IOW, the anti-missile/fighter capabilities of the ESG are only worth
"higher cost" compared to scatterguns if it gets to fire *at least* four

shots, preferrably more, during the course of a battle - but IME it is 
quite rare for a battle to feature that many turns' worth of fighter
missile attacks against a single individual ship (or even in the close 
vicinity of one).

To answer Matt's question: Mass 3, Cost 12 might be OK, falling between
and CST's suggested costs. Mass 3, Cost 15 is exactly the same cost as 
three scatterguns; so if (which I believe) the Mass 4, Cost 12 is too
the Mass 3, Cost 15 will be too high as well.



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

Prev: Re: 2300 AD Next: Re: Galactica 2003