[FT] Kra'Vak Design Test (for discussion)

I'm sorry I wasn't able to bring this up earlier (I'm still trying to catch up
on the mail this list has generated lately).

First of all - I like many of the suggestions that have come across the
mailing list lately. However I'd like to point out a potential balance problem
with the hull portion of one of the suggestions.

> FT2.5 Kra'Vak

[some snipping involved]

> Step 2:

I like the differences in the mass allocated versus effective mass for damage
purposes. The problem lies with the cost. The cost above takes into account
only the damage boxes added. There are other cost savings to occur when
pricing other portions of the ship out (ex. FTL, and Main Drives).

For example compare the starting figures on two similar ship designs, one KV
and one Human.

KV: Mass mass 100 cost 100
Weak Hull    mass  20  cost  60
FTL mass 10 cost 20
Main (4)     mass  20  cost  40 (assuming standard Human engines for
this example)

This leaves 50 mass available for other items, a total of 30 boxes for hull
damage, all at a cost of 220.

Now on to the Human example: Mass mass 100 cost 100
Avg Hull     mass  30  cost  60
FTL mass 10 cost 20
Main (4)     mass  20  cost  40

This leaves only 40 mass available with the same ability to take hull damage,
costing the same 220.

If you modify this example so the KV has a strong hull (or better) and change
the mass of the Human vessel to make it possible to have the same

number of hull damage boxes the cost is favors the KV more.

My suggestion is to increase the cost to 4 per mass of hull.

Kra'Vak armor is both more dense and more effective than the human equivalent.
Armor must be purchased in 2 point increments.

Something similar happens when looking at the armor costs as well.

> 2 Points Armor - 1 MASS

This is the same price that the human ships pay for each MASS of armor,
however the KV are getting double the benefit. I would prefer to see the cost
more in the neighborhood of 5 per MASS of the armor.

Well... that's my comments for the moment. Thanks for looking at them.

If this has already been mentioned or mulled over please accept my apologies
as I've probably not gotten to that message as of yet.