Designs systems

> Brian writes:

No, the problem with BTech (at least classic, I quit when the clans came) was
not really the nature of the sample designs but the quite simply the fact that
the design system was broken.

E.g. there was no good reason to *ever* take less than maximum armor. Some
weapons (e.g. MGs) were not only suboptimal, but downright dangerous to have
(ever calculated how much damage an exploding MG ammo bin does?)

The sheet mechs were built around the images in their licensed and house
artwork, so they ignored obvious clues like the above. Custom ones, OTOH,
chucked image and built for pure game effectiveness.

Likewise, in the old days of FT2 it was possible (downright simple, in fact)
to take any sheet ship and design a one that was better *in* *every* *way* for
pretty much the same points.

But this isn't the case with every game. Sky Galleons of Mars provides very
good sheet designs for example. DP9 systems look rather good. And it certainly
doesn't *need* to be the case with any game.

I haven't tested FB design system enough to give an informed opinion, but it
at least looks much better than the old system.

IMOHO (In My Own Humble Opinion) The vehical system had flaws also. Because
the ground vehicals were not mechs, they had an extra "framing and such" that
was added to the mass of Fusion reactors. This made them almost the same size
as the ICE engines.

How did this one slip by them?

Donald Hosford

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> Brian writes:

> I haven't tested FB design system enough to give an informed opinion,

As someone who's played with both systems, I can definitely say that the FB
system is far superior to FT2 in terms of producing balanced designs in terms
of point costs.