Re: SG-Ortillary

> > Which raises a question in my mind. Namely, does anybody else
> > think the dammage/firepower represented by ortillary to be
> > UNDERpowered? I think that the effects and destructive
> > power in ortillary firesupport is too low for
> > the energy levels involved....
>
> In SG what do you rate them as, Very large artillery?? I'd probably
also
> rate them as anti-armour vs armour and anti-personnel vs dispersed
(just
to
> capture the effects of kinetic energy and all). Mind you I'm not one
for
> using much if any artillery in SG - I just know its gonna deviate and
land
> on me anyway!

I do agree that both in DS and SG ortillery is vastly underpowered (but
then
again my to-be-written TOE will include an orillery observer at the
company
level, so I'm probably a bit biased).  Also, the existing rules for
artillery cover only kenetic penetrator and explosive warhead type
things.
While treating missiles and specialised ortillery fire as in the above
would
be (sort of) satisfactory, it really doesn't suffice to reprosent the
effect
of a ship's main beams, pulse torpedoes, neadle beams, railguns, or
plasma
bolts on a ground target.  Therefore, my 2 cents would be to suggest
treating these things as outlined below.  I'll only coment on SG as my
DS
experience is a tad limited.
Main Beams (inc Pulsars): Everything within a certain radius (say 18")
is
treated as if hit by weapon with impact dice something like
1D12*6*(Class of
beam)^2.
Neadle Beams: As a Class 2 Main Beam but w/ a smaller radius (for
argument,
8").
Pulse Torps: As a Class 3 Main Beam but w/ a greater radius (24") and a
greater chance for deviation.
Railguns oops, K-guns rather: Standard solid munitions treat as a hit w/
an
impact die of 1D12*(2+(Class of gun))^2.
Plasma Bolts: Treat as a tacticle nuclear munition.

I'm sure the actualy numbers I used arn't very balanced, but it's a go
at
it.

Zachariah Lakel