Comments on various designs...

> At 9:18 PM 11/2/99 +0100, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

<mucho snippage>

> Of course, this all leads up to my own Catoism: FB Hull should only

I remember you mentioning this once before and it made a lot of sense to me in
terms of play balance. But as I recall, you shied away from it since it would
invalidate all the current FB designs.

Seems to me that it would just reduce the NPV's by 1 point per hull box. If
this were a rule change that Jon and playtesting teams wanted to implement,
then it would seem that FB2 would be a good time to do it. Couldn't the
revised costs be listed as errata in the new book?

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Thanks.

> Jeff Lyon wrote:

> <mucho snippage>

> to me in terms of play balance. But as I recall, you shied away from

It won't invalidate them - they'd still be legal designs once their
NPVs are adjusted. It just makes several of them rather sub-optimal
designs :-/

OTOH, many of those that are sub-optimal now - the ESU Manchuria family
of designs, for example - would start making a lot more sense... I
guess it evens out, though experienced FB players will probably have to
relearn how to design effective ships <g>

> Seems to me that it would just reduce the NPV's by 1 point per hull

Guess why I keep repeating it <G>