Re: Bombardment and Beams

> I think someone (with a bit of materials or
> physics math) could illustrate the amount of
> energy required to damage current steel
> structures.

Does my minor in Mathematics count???

> I think someone else could show the amount of
> energy density required to achieve that and the
> amount of raw energy you'd have to throw at a
> given square ten km box of space to generate
> that.

The point isn't to cover a ten km box of space.  The point is that if
the
enemy is position is off by a 0.000001 degrees from where you predict he
will be when you fire, you still have a chance to hit him.  Assuming
10,000
km per MU, range of 36 MU; this gives us 10000km * 1000 m/km * 36 *
tan(0.000001) = 6.28 m.  Area of a circle of this radius is 124 sq.m. 
This
is much less then a 10 km box which is 100,000,000 sq. m...

> I think the answer would be amazingly large.

Yes, assuming one pulse per 8 sq. m, this would require 1,562,500 pulses
time the energy required per pulse, an absurd number, and I see no
reason to
calculate it, also note that there is a gap between pulses.  However, if
you
take 124 sq. m and assume one pulse per 4 sq. m, then you are only
talking 8
pulses times the power required.  A fighter will slip through, but then
fighters are supposed to.

> This is why I assume beams are pinpoint
> accurate weapons that direct very focused
> energies in extremely specific locations and why
> the name of the game in the FT time period is
> *fire control* *fire control* *fire control*
> sensors.

Yes, 0.000001 degree is a very small error when you consider two ships
each
moving 3 dimensionally realtive to each other at that range.

> Fire, Fusion and Steel (a Traveller thingie) had a
> good explanation of why this would be an
> ironclad pain for lasers (and why gravitic lensing
> is almost a must). Even absolutely minute
> differences in angles of focus make huge
> differences of energy density in a beam fired
> over thousands or tens of thousands of kms.

Yes, I think I proved that above just by the shear number of pulses
required
for a 10 km box...

> Which brings us to bombardments. I suspect a
> ships beam is powerful and focused. But it may
> not be tuned to go through atmosphere (it is
> tuned for vacuum combat). Fire control sensors
> are designed to pickup stuff against the
> ambient stellar background, not through an
> atmosphere on the ground. And the power of
> the weapons, though large, is not enough (IMO)
> to obliterate cities, etc). Otherwise we'd see a
> vastly different style of ground combat in DS2
> and vastly different vehicle designs. And fighters
> designed for vacuum operation (starfury
> anyone?) probably suck rocks in an
> atmosphere.

PLEASE CHECK MY ORIGINAL SUGGESTIONS.  BEAMS AREN'T VERY EFFECTIVE ON
EARTH
TYPE PLANETS, YOU NEED CLASS 4 OR LARGER TO DO ANYTHING.

As for the fighters, Thunderbolts exist in B5 specifically to fix that
defficency in Earth Force.

> So, I suggest that the specialized ortillery ship
> is in fact called for (and lo and behold, the rules
> provide!). The ortillery ship has multiple ortillery
> modules, point defence, and maybe some B1s
> for close in defense. The ortillery modules
> deploy OSM (Orbit to Surface Missiles) and
> specialized anti-surface beam weapons (that
> perhaps are high-powered to burn through the
> atmosphere but tuned for the task). The
> ortillery ship also has an ability to integrate with
> airborne and surface recce and fire direction
> systems to give it a good chance of hitting what
> it wants. This includes with RPVs, recce sats, and
> the like. The Orbital FC ship also probably
> deploys a constellation of satellites loaded with
> munitions so that it can attack anyplace,
> anytime on call (instead of being victim of
> orbits). These work a bit like RenLegs Thor
> Javelins.

I don't like the Ortillary system because they are NOT ammo dependent. 
As
for orbital bombardment satelites, make a small space station with 1
hull,
and a couple submunition packs loaded with orbital bombardment
submunitions.
Carry in a freighter (or cargo hold of a military ship, or fighter bay
of
carrier) and deploy when needed.  One of the reasons I came up with my
original suggestions would be to allow people to do stuff like this.

> And it seems to me their ought to be a Ground-
> Attack type fighter, specialized for in-
> atmosphere assaults and surface and
> atmospheric envelope target engagements.

Why bother.  Use standard fighter types.  Can have a very rough time
going
into the atmosphere...

> Most of the preceding applies to planets with a
> terran atmosphere of earth-ish density. As you
> thin out the atmosphere, normal starship
> sensors and beams become more viable,
> though still less specialized than those on a OFC
> ship.

That's in my original idea.

> Having such things makes the game more
> interesting. It presents assets that FT fleets
> have to defend (transports too, but OFCs and
> orbital C4I centers as well). It also restricts the
> domination of the campaign worlds to navy,
> navy, navy. If you want to play SG or DS without
> constantly applying the "hostile atmosphere" or
> other artificial constraints, then there had better
> be a way to prevent a single corvette (or even
> a small fleet) from threatening any surface
> combat action without specialized assets.

If it's a planet similar to Earth, corvettes won't be effective, unless
they
have one shot weapons, ideally loaded with orbital bombardment
munitions.
Note that this will make them one shot wonders.  They drop there barrage
then they are out of ammo until the next operational turn, assuming they
have frieghters with more to get replenishment from.

> It seems to me that the variety of ship designs,
> of tactical complexities, and of campaign
> scenario options offered by this type of
> interpretation makes it the most supportable
> from a game interest perspective, especially if
> you want to play everything from Grand
> Strategic down to Skirmish level games. If the
> Navy dominates and orbital superiority is the
> whole situation, then none of the ground games
> are worth rolling out most times.

Yep, they're mop up opperation like the Central Pacific campaign if your
fleet can't threaten the enemy.  But if the fleets are comparable, you
wind
up fighting a serries of Guadalcannals...  Both sides darting in to land
reinforcement and do a quick barrage of the enemy position, and then
dash
off...

ias