Re: [FT] What was WRONG with Railguns??

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:44:33 -0600, "Dean Gundberg" writes:
>> What with all the reworking and theories and proposals, I don't
honestly
>> know what the problem was with railguns?  The hit/damage mechanics
were
>> fine.  Damage was acceptable.  What WAS it that started all this?
>
>The goal was trying to update the KV for the next Fleet Book.	The
problem
>with the railguns were cost to mass and then why get a class 3 RG when
3
>class 1s were just as good.
>
>In MT, 2 dice were rolled for each RG, one to-hit and one to determine
>damage.  Some of the latest proposals are very dice heavy with 1 or 2
dice
>per class and then variable to-hit numbers or dice by range, armor
modifers
>that can vary dice rolled and then to-hit numbers.  Its getting more
>complicated than it should and I think a lot of the solutions are not
>related to the problems and change the all or nothing feel of the RG.
>

Why do we have to find a "right" way to do rail guns, and not just
find multiple "new weapon systems".  I would think that a lot of
places with campaign games would LIKE to have multiple, balenced
weapons to research, or to give out to enemy ships.

Dean, you should write up a final version of your RG's (dRGs or
whatever), and post it.If other people what to keep working on other
solutions, that sounds fine too.  I'd love to see more varients and
more weapons to fill my alien fleets with. :)

-=- Matthew L. Seidl		email: seidl@cs.colorado.edu		
   =-=
=-= Graduate Student			Project . . . What Project?	
   -=-
-=- http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/Home.html 	 -Morrow Quotes 
   =-=
=-= http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/lawsuit				
   -=-