FT: % or Fixed Mass Screens etc?

I was playing around with a spreadsheet for Full Thrust III (I know it is not
out until spring but I wanted to see how it would work) when several points
occurred to me:

1. There are fixed mass items such as weapons and others whose mass is% based
such as drives. Are screens fixed or% based? If they are fixed they let off
big ships too lightly and if they are% based they might be

practical in small ships, and I would hate to see small ships with screens.

2. I would like to see armour replacing screens. The same comments apply as
for screens. 10% per armour level (if 1 to 3) or even 15% does not seem too
much to pay. See table II below.

3.      The number of fire-cons a ship can be exploited in other ways
than fire control. Make it the number of sensor rolls a ship can make (already
effectively the case in FT II). So small ships overloaded with
fire-cons and sensors make useful scouts (anyone for trawlers in
space?).

4. An expanded weapon selection. I like this. One type I would like to see are
Spinal Mounts. Expanding the progression used by the A, B and C batteries
upwards should produce weapons so big that even a BB can only have one firing
in one arc only.

5. Now a really odd suggestion, why not invert the battery ratings, so a C
becomes an A and an A becomes a C. This allows easier upward expansion, so the
AA Megabattery becomes a D (or maybe an E) and so on.

6. Is it unreasonable to give the AA Megabattery new range increments of 12",
the only reason for this is because it would be an easier fit on my

quick reference sheet (something like table I below) and it seems to be a
better 'fit' with the other batteries.

7.      Streamlining should cost Mass, eg. semi-streamlining uses 10% of
a ships mass and full 25%. Why? It seems reasonable and it would be useful

in campaign games.("Streamlining is for shuttles").

8. I assume that a ships uninteresting bits such as crew, life support and the
like is included in the Mass of items, so a gun includes the mount, the crew,
the power supply and so on. SO are we going to see the mass of everything
doubling to allow for this? Probably not but it could

be a way of balancing some items such as screens.

Table I. Beam Batteries Mass Damage at range: FT2 FT3 12" 24" 36" 48" 60"
C       1       1       1d      -       -       -       -
B       2       2+1     2d      1d      -       -       -
A       3       4+2     3d      2d      1d      -       -
--------------------------------------------------------------
D                       4d      3d      2d      1d      -
E 5d 4d 3d 2d 1d F 6d 5d 4d 3d 2d G 7d 6d 5d 4d 3d H 8d 7d 6d 5d 4d

I assume that 60" is the maximum possible range due to limitations of
fire-control technology.
I think I would prefer lower damage at all ranges but some other

effect, such as improved penetration for the big guns. Shotgunning does not
seem very sensible if the targets are even several km apart let alone
thousands of km, but it is very manga, still we have the Nova Cannon for that.

Naval architecture was a fight between protection, speed and firepower so I am
very glad to see acceleration costing mass, with luck we might be able to
build proper battlecruisers!

Curiosity about how a ships mass was allocated led to a little research (about
5 minutes) and produced the table below. Interesting is it not? I

would like to see more data but this will do to be going on with. It is tabbed
so I hope it works out when you receive it.

Table II. WW II British Warships Tons (Deep Displacement) Ship Nelson KGV
Vanguard Roberts Ark Royal Illustrious Fiji Tribal Class J & K Classs Type BB
BB BB Monitor CV CV Cruiser DD DD Main 9 x 16" 10 x 14" 8 x 15" 2 x 15" 12 x
6" 8 x 4.7" 6 x 4.7"
Secondary       12 x 6" -- 16 x 5.25" --
TT 6 8 x 21" 10 T DC
       45 DC
Hull 13830 18657 13651 12724 3819 938 876 Protection 12413 14741 2854 4941
1289 Equipment 1050 1149 1847 656 643 166 142 Machinery 2768 3251 298 2468
2464 1413 596 530 Armament 6900 6567 7606 1552 1042 997 1188 272 243 Fuel 4000
4925 554 4443 4854 1700 521 484 Misc 510 627 123 39 45 Aircraft 1629 1186 174
Armour & Hull 14250 6030 Total 35000 36727 51537 9717 27721 28619 10354 2532
2320

Percentages Hull & Protection 41 71 65 62 60 62 49 37 38 Hull 38 36 49 44 37
37 38 Protection 34 29 10 17 12

Armament 20 18 15 16 4 3 11 11 10 Aircraft 0 0 0 0 6 4
2       0       0
Fuel 11 0 10 6 16 17 16 21 21 Machinery 0 8 6 3 9 9 14 24 23

From
The Design and Construction of British Warships 1939-1945: Volume I,
Major Surface Warships. D. K. Brown (ed.). Conway Maritime Press. 1995. ISBN 0
85177 673 6

> I was playing around with a spreadsheet for Full Thrust III (I know it

They're both at this point, but I dont feel I'm at liberty to expand the
details. I'll let Jon do this.

> 2. I would like to see armour replacing screens. The same comments

Armour is being looked at in a different light at the moment.

> 5. Now a really odd suggestion, why not invert the battery ratings,

Actually, a point that hasn't been addressed yet would be an 'early years'
battery. Something like what I came up with for my 'early years' B5 rules
(the D-battery - basically a C-batt of range 6")

> 7. Streamlining should cost Mass, eg. semi-streamlining uses 10% of

...if I understand you correctly, this does not seem reasonable to me. Could
you please elaborate on this?

> Table I. Beam Batteries

FYI, the masses have since been tweaked a bit here.

> D 4d 3d 2d 1d -

I would think that if you can create a big enough gun (such as your
proposed H-batt), you can make a better, longer-ranged fire control
system. Higher tech and all that. Unfortunately there is no tech-tree
or tech level system in FT. The only way you have right now to balance things
out is by Mass or Point Cost.

> I think I would prefer lower damage at all ranges but some other

> effect, such as improved penetration for the big guns.

There is a mechanism being intro'd in FT3 to cover improved penetration.

Mk

Michael Blair,

Queation: Why do the ship percentages add up to 120 to 150 percent of the
ships mass?

Thanks,