Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: FTL

In message <20151029201226.GA25242@firedrake.org>
	  Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:00:27PM -0400, Damond Walker wrote:
>>Speaking of core systems - has anyone thought about removing the
concept
>>all together and just slapping those icons directly on the SSD in
essence
>>treating them like anything else on the SSD?

> If you were going to do that then I think it might be an idea to
> genericise the "critical armour" that they get now. Now, most other
> systems won't be allowed to have it (a beam batt or an FCS needs to
> see out, so you can't put it in the middle of the ship; the answer to
> battle damage is to have a spare one). But I can see e.g. a merchie
> having an exposed bridge which gets damaged like normal ship systems
> (because that lets them squeeze in one more container per voyage), or
> a late-war UNSC ship having a deep-buried bridge that's really hard to
> knock out, at huge mass penalty.

> But this is definitely an optional rules module!

> R

Actually, if you extend the definition of 'critical' armour to include 
things like backup systems, you could justify allowing it for any 
system (if the costs are worked out correctly), although, as you point 
out, it would probably be easier to just buy duplicates of some 
systems.
OTOH the 'variable number of hull rows' rules from the playtest fleets 
ad a way of providing some 'critical armour' to everything on a ship.

-- 
Charles Taylor