Prev: Re: Kinetic Shields Next: Re: Kinetic Shields

Re: Kinetic Shields

From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@y...>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Kinetic Shields


--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
...
> >You just increase the cost propotionally.
> 
> You have to increase the cost of *all
> screen-degraded weapons* in 
> proportion to their normal degrading by screens for
> this to work... which 
> means that ithe basic FT screens become unbalanced
> instead :-/
> 
I don't see this. After all the cost of beams 
don't change when someone selects level 1 or level
2 screens. Some kind of kinetic screen which
stops projectiles or some universal shield has
some mass/point cost (I don't know exactly
what cost) which would make it expensive enough
to balance the advantage of taking less damage
from projectiles (or pulse torpedoes whatever
those are).

A universal screen would start out "including"
screens in the sense that it could not be more
effective (or as effective) and lower cost.
Then the extra stopping power would have to
cost some amount extra. 

The idea of stopping a projectile is included
in the Earthforce Alliance sourcebook I think
(written by Jon). There, there are no screens
and beam weapons can't be stopped, but pulse
weapons (and projectiles I think) can be 
intercepted by interceptor batteries. I seem
to recall they cost about the same as screens.
Perhaps the added protection is worth double
normal cost? I think you'd have to playtest to
determine what to price it at.

Remember, even if you have a screen that stops
say 4 points of damage (which in the mass
energy screen costs a lot) I routinely get
hit by 10 point hits from Kra'vak and that
4 points of protection will be so expensive
that my firepower will be sharply reduced.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Prev: Re: Kinetic Shields Next: Re: Kinetic Shields