FT-Tech etc etc

> David Rodemaker wrote:

> I handle this IMC in a very simple matter. Since it is based on a

And Oerjan Ohlson wrote

> The problem with this is that FT only uses D6s. Even a +1 modifier is

Yup, that would be a big difference in FT. My way to represent advanced tech
in FT would involve mass/cost for different systems. Off the top of my
head,
say the heavy beams used in the GZG-ECC for the mass of normal beams
+50%
(instead of the next class above). The cost would increase by a greater
ammount than the weapons advantage would represent (say x6 mass for the
above). This would give new tech a advantage vs old tech, and would also be a
lot more expensive (and no, I have no idea how this would affect the game
ballance, this was just off the top of my head). Of course, the same idea
could be applied to anything, say drives (KV drives gain 1 thrust per 4% mass
instead of per 5%, but at a cost of x4 mass) or weapons (KV kinetic guns have
dammage of the class above (K2 =3 DP) for the same mass, but a cost of x5
mass, or 8 MU range bands instead of 6 MU, for higher velocity rounds), or
even electronics (a flag bridge at mass of 4, a cost of 20, can tie all ships
with 18 MU into a PDS net, without the need for the ships involved to mount
ADFCons). Just some ideas off the top of my head.