FT3 Revision, not Re-write

After playing with the FT3 proposed changes, I would like to see a revision
not
a re-write.

Following are some revisions I would like to see:

1)Classification ranges. These need to be spread more evenly over the 100 ton
range.
Escorts: 2-30 tons                                  Corvette:
2-10 tons

Frigate:
11-20

Destroyer:
21-30
Cruisers: 31-60 tons                               Lt Cruiser
31-40
                                                                     Esc
Cruiser
41-50
                                                                     Hvy
Cruiser
51-60
Capital: 61-100                                        Battlecruiser
61-70

Battleship
71-80

Dreadnought
80-90

Battledrdngt
91-100

2) Beam weapons. They need to be spread out more on a tonnage or cost basis.
2a) One way would be to increase tonnage for arcs. C 1 ton turret B 2 ton
casement B 3 ton turret A 4 ton casement A 6 ton turret (I feel that 8 tons is
too expensive)
  2b) Another option (prefered by me because no ship re-design would be
needed) is to make the classes just add range but not damage potential. Either
make all ranges 1d6 damage. Or all class Beams 3d6 at 12", and A&B 2d6 at 24".
This would
make the cost/tonage progression more in line with the weapon
capabilities.

3) Since most of the "official" ship figures are partially streamlined, cost
should be changed to make this the norm. Perhaps a "savings" of.25 hull cost
for non-streamlined, and 1.5 cost for fully streamlined

4) PDAF/ADAFs should be able to target any fighter/missile in range.

> Brian Bell wrote:
2-10
tons
> [quoted text omitted]
Frigate:
> 11-20
Destroyer:
> 21-30
Esc Cruiser
> 41-50
Hvy Cruiser
> 51-60
Battleship
> 71-80
Dreadnought
> 80-90
Battledrdngt
> 91-100

I would not mind if the whole classification thing changed so it's broken down
into mass ranges that each equate to a size rating(e.g. Escorts are now
treated as size class A, Cruisers are size class B) vs. using size ranges to
determine the ship type.

Using generic sizes would represent how each race might have a different
method of classifying a ship type, especially new types that do not exist in
the current offerings. I realize one of the main reasons for the current
system is probably to quickly identify ships, based on types people are
familiar with, but I like something more generic to allow players to choose
the type they feel best describes the ship.

> 4) PDAF/ADAFs should be able to target any fighter/missile in range.

ADAFs already do this.