Re: [FT] Heavy Beams - 4321

Charles Taylor wrote:

>>That's quite intentional :-) We don't *want* B5s and bigger to be as
>>effective as B2s or B3s, even in unlimited space... though some people
>>(eg. Mikko) think that we failed, and that the long-ranged beams are
>>too *powerful* instead. (Which was a major reason why Mikko stopped
>>playing GZG games completely some months back, BTW - IHO they're >>too
open to abuse.)
> 
>Hmm.. well, if you can keep the range open to about 48-60 mu then I
>guess that a Cl.5 would be _infinitely_ more effective than the
>equivalent mass in Cl.3's - the difficult bit is keeping the range
open.

The difficult bit is keeping the range open *for long enough*. The
weaker
your long-ranged weapon is, the longer you need to keep the range open
in
order to win the battle. You need a significant edge in thrust rating to
keep it open indefinitely though - and even then you won't always
succeed,
particularly if you have to chase your target down <g>

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry