[FTFB] Minaturization

3 posts ยท Nov 24 1998 to Nov 24 1998

From: Edmund Hon <edmundh@i...>

Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:42:00 -0500

Subject: [FTFB] Minaturization

With the new list and all it seems like a good idea to de-lurk and toss
an idea at you guys.

Lately I've been thinking about miniaturization. Looking at ships like the
Jem'Hadar Attack Ship (BTW the DS9 Tech Manual is *great*!) and the White Star
which all pack a powerful weapon, yet they are all small ships physically. If
we are to emulate their designs in FTFB we will end up with some huge ship
with class 4 beams. So how about this miniatureization rule:

If a player so desires, any systems used in a ship design can have it's mass
halved, but it's cost tripled. This can apply to any weapons and systems,
including drives and armor (i.e. advance in material science).

On the flip side of this rule, any systems can have it's mass doubled but only
cost a third, to emulate obsolete systems.

From: John Fu <jfu@n...>

Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:33:26 -0500

Subject: Re: [FTFB] Minaturization

> Edmund Hon wrote:

> If a player so desires, any systems used in a ship design can have

I've always just built the ship normally and defined it as being smaller. With
the FTFB rules, I also tend to use weak hulls. Sure, the ships cost a
lot -- but
it fits with their capabilities.

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>

Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:19:36 -0800

Subject: Re: [FTFB] Minaturization

> On the flip side of this rule, any systems can have it's mass doubled

This could be a problem. With miniaturization, you loose a couple of points to
make it small, but with this, you gain points by making it larger.

I'd change it to at least an even trade (mass x 2, cost x 1/2) or even
slightly poorer (mass x 2, cost x 2/3) to show that it's less efficient.