RE: FT-WotW (Railguns)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Izenberg, Noam [SMTP:Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:40 AM
> To:	'FT List'
> Subject:	Re: FT-WotW (Railguns)
> 
> From: "Matthew Smith" <matt@smithdom.freeserve.co.uk>
> 
> >> My personal bias is to just rename K-guns. There's not logic in
> creating
> >> something that is basically a K-gun and give it  a differnet
mechanic
> just
> >> so Humans can use them.
> 
> >I disagree. I think that just re-naming K-Guns removes some of the
> >individuality of both KVs and humans. KVs and Humans both have their
own
> >very individual fighting style, and by porting the main KV weapon
> directly
> >to the humans this is spoiled. 
> 
> We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. FT is a KISS system, and
> creating a new weapon mechanic for a failry cosmetic difference adds
> unneeded complexity. If you want Human Railguns to be less
hard-hitting
> than
> K-guns, limit humans to K-3 and under. You can make the weapons can
"feel"
> quite different with a small amount of effort in PSB. The tactics will
> _have_ to be different, since Human ships will not have Advanced
Drives. 
> 
[snip]

> Noam
-----End Original Message-----

Another easier variant to make human rail guns feel different would be
to
have them double on a roll OVER the class level (roll of 6 always
doubles).
This would make a bell curve for the weapon and larger class railguns
less
effective (but still dangerous) with the best mix in the Class 2-4
range.
Same mass as KV K-Guns. Costing them would be tricky, but an easy way to
lend a different flavor to the same basic principal. PSB: KV gravitic
technology is supperior allowing them to fire the heavier guns with
greater
efficiency (i.e. Human railgun projectiles slow as the mass of the
projectile goes up, so the kinetic energy transfer curve flattens).
Human
long-range targeting systems are better (cross-bred from Class-3 and 4
beams).

Human Railgun			   K-Gun
Class	  Average Damage on a Hit  Average Damage on a Hit
 1	    1.83		      1.17
 2	    3.33		      2.67
 3	    4.50		      4.50
 4	    5.33		      6.67
 5	    5.83		      9.17
 6	    7.00		     11.00
 7	    8.17		     12.50
 .	     .			       .
 .	     .			       .

---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/
---