> Binhan Lin wrote:
> You can still
We (playtesters and Jon) did our best to get the weapon Mass values right. The
"best" weapon combination is the one that fits into your
tactical style - each of the main weapon types (batteries of various
classes, pulse torps, needles, salvo missiles, sub-packs) has a range, a
target type and a set of arcs where it gives the highest bang for your
bucks. There is no "3-arc A batteries are equal or superior to all other
weapons at all ranges", or at least we were unable to find them. Since the
points costs for the weapons are simply 3x their Mass, the points should be OK
as well.
Similarly, the Mass allocations for engienes and hull are OK. I'm not,
however, entirely convinced that the points costs (2x Mass) for engines
and hull are right, and herein lies the potential for min/maxing that I
see in the FB design rules. Not sure how I'd want to change it, though -
speed and durability are both very nice to have :-/ The cost for any FB
ship tends to be about 3.5 times its Mass (except for carriers who pay
extra for the fighters), so the FT/FB points system is a rather blunt
measurement of combat power. It exists, though.
Later,
I have only two problems with the FT-FB ship construction rules:
1. No sensor rules. MT rules aren't interesting. I'm working on some ideas,
but I am not satisfied with them enought to post them yet.
2. No endurance as a factor of mass. This doesn't make a difference for
determining combat power, but makes a huge difference in campaigns... A ship
which needs to be resupplied every month has a lot more space for weapons then
a ship that needs to be resupplied once every year...
IAS
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> I have only two problems with the FT-FB ship construction rules:
This is *exactlY* the same reason why the sensor rules weren't
re-written
in the FB - they'll be in FTIII instead :-)
> 2. No endurance as a factor of mass.
This has never been a feature in Full Thrust, though, and it is *very*
dependent on the background you're gaming in. A Babylon 5 campaign game is
likely to have very different supply requirements and mechanisms than, say, a
Honor Harrington one or a Traveller one (and please don't mention a background
where everyone uses today's reaction engines <g>). Because of this, endurance
and maintenance rules should not be part of the generic design rules IMO.
If you want to, you can give all your FT/FB ships a cargo hold
representing space devoted to spares, extra fuel etc - this is already
in the FB design rules. A ship which devotes Mass to cargo space is by
definition using less Mass to carry weapons. However, each
background-specific campaign (including those set in homegrown
backgrounds) has to specify just how much cargo space is necessary and what
effects it has.
Regards,
> Oerjan writes:
> A Babylon 5 campaign game
There's a background like that? Really? Where, where, for the love of Pete,
man, where?!?
<grin>