>1) It seems that the chance to use passive scanners is equal to use
>active scanners . Whats the point of this if the active scanners give your
>position away ???? . Why not simply increase the chance to use passives
>by one level .
Active scanners *should* have a better chance to pick up a target
>3) Agility or Pilot . Thats a bit harsjh, I allow the pilots to add their
>skill to the agility . (I mean han solo, his ship had an agility of at least
>5, and he himself a pilot skill of at least 5 also) . If you look at it this
>way, 2 fighters have agl 6 each, this means they are perfectly matched,
>skill really doesnt come into it (unless they are at level 7) . But I also
>let the pilot add his skill to the chance to hit . This simulates a pilot
>attempting to out manuver the other and place his vessel in a better
>firing position .
While some will find this system abusive, I don't see any problems
with it. BTW, the _Millenium Falcon_ isn't that maneuverable itself -- it
probably wouldn't be higher than agility 2-3. It's main drive advantage is
that it is very fast in hyperspace -- twice as fast as other ships. (I have
Star Wars: the RPG). While in 'real' space combat, the distances and times
involved would most likely make the machine more important than the pilot, but
that is hardly exciting for PCs. I prefer to run my space combats more 'Star
Warsish' -- not very realistic, but its pretty fun
>4) Computer or Gunnery . Again a bit harsh, considering all the big naval
>vessels carry gunners (I mean some of these ships have computers - 9), I
>again, let the gunner add his skill to the computer rank .
Makes sense. See above.
>5) I had a player come up to a disabled corsair in a gig, armed with a
>laser turret, fire point blank rank at the vessels bridge, well I said
>the shot totally wasted it, what are other people views .
If 'wasted' means 'destroyed completely', then no, I would say the
result was a bit extreme. Missile turret, yes; laser turret, no.