In some of my ship designs, I've bought a grouping of 3 Class 2 beams and
spent 2 mass on 6 extra arcs. But intead of making 2 of the beams
360, I made all 3 of them 5-arc beams (all but the aft arc), stealing
SFB terminology to call it a Forward Expanded arc or FX. As I see it, there's
nothing explicit or even implicit to forbid this, but I wanted to check with
the list to see if its a kosher approach.
Seems reasonable to me. Go for it.
Jim Clem
Full Thrust Site http://www.geocities.com/area51/stargate/2891/ncs.html
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 10:27:02 -0500 "Izenberg, Noam"
> <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> writes:
Strictly speaking you can only buy extra arcs for that class per system and
its always 3 extra arcs for cost of 1 per beam system. Splitting cost between
N systems is not a precedent we want to start.
The granularity of the system just isn't fine enough for the FX arc you
propose for this class of weapon, but I don't agree with changing the design
rules. Its limitation is explicit in the design rules, the arc upgrade cost
per system is clearly stated.
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 16:02:48 -0000 "Tim Jones"
> <Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk> writes:
In this case, it doesnt create any fractional accounting, and though I have to
look to be certain, this may be the only weapon it might work for. I don't see
the problem here.
> The granularity of the system just isn't fine enough for the FX arc
huh???????? You gots six fire arcs, and cant fire into the rear-most
(unless you use the optional rule) Why not take advantage of the cost
situation to make better use of your money?
, but I don't agree with changing the
> design
Changing the design rule has little overall effect. It doesnt apply in general
to most weapons. It not like a proposal that adds another 250 die rolls and a
set of charts to the game.
I'd call this a potential rules abuse. The difference between 2 Class 2 (360)
and 1 Class 2 (180), and 3 Class 2 (300) is actually QUITE large. The standard
design might only have 2 bearing, while the new design would almost always
have 3 bearing.
I say leave the design rules as they stand. Is it more realistic -
perhaps not, but it is simple and balanced.
> Changing the design rule has little overall effect. It doesnt apply in
I hate to be contrary, but yes it does. (See my previous post concerning arcs)
I affects balance. In effect, you're penalising smaller ships that done have
the MASS or POINTS for 3 class 2 Beams to take advantage of this little
"loophole."
Soon we'd see ships that only mounted Class 2s in multiples of 3 to take
advantage of the situation.
I'd rather leave things as they stand.
> In this case, it doesnt create any fractional accounting, and though I
In this case no, in others it could. You are correct that other FB weapons
purchase single arcs per MASS not multi arcs.
> huh???????? You gots six fire arcs, and cant fire into the rear-most
You've only got six arcs if you pay the extra mass for every class 2 mount. If
I have 3 class 2 mounts and pay 2 extra mass thats two 6 arc and one 3 arc.
The extra 1-3 arcs costs one point of MASS, you can't split this MASS
between
mounts as it relates to extra gimbles/traverse gear etc. on the specific
weapon mount. This is the granularity I was referring to.
> Changing the design rule has little overall effect. It doesnt apply in
In this case I agree, the effect is normalised and minimal. However its still
an exception and will break various design programs if you were to reverse
engineer the designs using it. You have to remember its in effect and all to
save 1 MASS point. This is maximising your assets with extreme predjudice.
Does that matter, probably not.
> In some of my ship designs, I've bought a grouping of 3 Class 2 beams
> In some of my ship designs, I've bought a grouping of 3 Class 2 beams
I think the [OFFICIAL] line on this has to be that this would not be allowed
under the design system as it stands. It can be a house rule you can use if
all your players agree with it, but it doesn't fit into the "official" system
and you shouldn't expect to be able to put such ships in
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> I think the [OFFICIAL] line on this has to be that this would not be
How about finding a way to allow the 6-arc system to shift 30 degrees?
(half an arc)
How about allowing the old 4-arc system to co-exist? allowing it to
shift half an arc also? How about seperating the weapons from the firearcs,
and then allow the players to assemble their arcs to their weapons, any way
they want, and still be official? (this would allow more ship designs before
they started to seem the same, and without adding any complexity.)
Seeing as this is a mini's game, I do not see why the arcs have to be limited
in any way. (of course have arcs of a set number of degrees makes the whole
thing simpler...)
> How about finding a way to allow the 6-arc system to shift 30 degrees?
In order to create some Star Trek (movie era) designs I've had to change the
firing arcs to eight 45 degree arcs with 90 degress being the minimum. I've
kept the mass for 180 degrees the same as in the
Fleet Book but for smaller arcs you get more arc/mass whilst for
larger arcs you get less arc/mass.
(Example: Class 3 battery is still mass 6 for 180 degrees, but mass 4 gives
you 90 degrees instead of 60 and mass 9 gives you 315 degress instead of 360
degrees).
It works well for Trek but obvously can't be used alongside conventional Fleet
Book designs.
The arcs/mass in full are:
Class 1 battery: mass 1 for 360 degress.
Class 2 battery : mass 1 for 90 degress + 1 mass/additional 90
degrees.
Class 3 battery : mass 4 for 90 degress + 1 mass/additional 45
degress. Class 4, etc.: double previous class.
Torpedo : mass 4 for 90 degress + 1 mass/additional 45 degrees.
This is my personal take on these questions:
> How about finding a way to allow the 6-arc system to shift 30 degrees?
I see your point here, and even though it would be an easy solution to a
problem I've been having with Class 1 RGs... Why not 15 degrees; why not 1
degree. Where do you draw the line for simplicity's sake. FT draws that line
at 60 degrees.
> How about allowing the old 4-arc system to co-exist? allowing it to
Simply, I'd say that in general it would be impossible to reconcile the two,
POINT COST wise, without fractional accounting. Fractions bad.
> How about seperating the weapons from the firearcs, and then allow the
I'm not sure what you mean here, so I'm not gonna touch it.
> Seeing as this is a mini's game, I do not see why the arcs have to be
Got it in one. Add Game Balance to that list and you're there.
> GZG Jon wrote:
I think the [OFFICIAL] line on this has to be that this would not be allowed
under the design system as it stands. It can be a house rule you can use if
all your players agree with it, but it doesn't fit into the "official" system
and you shouldn't expect to be able to put such ships in tournaments or
competitive games; within your own group,
feel free to do as you like! :-)
Jon (GZG)
---
Well, Nerts! So much for that. I _will_ probably use it as a house rule,
but for "public" designs I'll have to go for 4 cross-broadside Class 2's
(2xF/FP/AP and 2xF/FS/PS) 3 class 2's; 2x360's and 1 FH.
Game balance-wise, I think its a total wash, but I liked the extra
coverage on the flanks and less power right up front.
FWIW, the only additional way I can see the system 'abused' in a similar
manner is by trying to buy down class 1's to 5 arcs so you can have 6 FX class
1's for the price of 5. That, however, also balances if you've got missile or,
especially, fighter attacks which could easily position themselves where you
have no 'modified' class 1 coverage.
Thanks for the feedback, all.
First let me say, I am not trying to stir anything up. I realize that Jon
(GZG) made his point. No harm intended, none taken. It's just a (few)
questions. I am not saying that FT is wrong...One thing I like, is that it is
different from the other ship games I have played. Like a fresh breeze. And
like Jon(GZG) said in the rule book: Change it as you see fit for YOUR own
games...
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> This is my personal take on these questions:
Well...Limiting it to half an arc, is simpler (less munchkinized). I just
thought it would allow more variation without adding complexity.
> >How about allowing the old 4-arc system to co-exist? allowing it to
You have a point. (no pun intended) It gives me food for thought...
> >How about seperating the weapons from the firearcs, and then allow
In my own ship-to-ship combat games (the ones I have made up), I usually
listed all of the weapons in one list, and the firearcs in the other. The
rules involved usually adjusted for the mass of the weapon. The larger the
mass of weapon, and
the greater the number of arcs it had, the more the turret-system would
cost and mass.
> >Seeing as this is a mini's game, I do not see why the arcs have to be
Thanks for your response. Much wisdom to think about.