Re: [GZG] [FT] Beam batteries as point defense

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGravitic
lensing is probably the best PSB (if you'll pardon the loaded term)
available to explain the use of beam batteries as point defense. I
initially resisted the whole idea, but I can see the benefit in taking
FT further away from wet-navy analogs. Allowing only Beam-1s as point
defense smacks of "5-inch DP guns." That kind of hat tip is nice, but I
now am more comfortable going away from it. It leaves interesting design
tradeoffs in place, because using beam-2 and 3 as PD sacrifices a lot of
a ship's offensive punch at what might be a critical point in the
engagement.

Another possibility is to make gravitic lensing (or whatever) a
purchasable technology upgrade, so there might be a "transitional" fleet
out there bristling with extra beam-1s as DP weapons, until they perfect
their gravitic lensing.

Best,
Ken

--- On Sun, 11/21/10, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:

From: Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Beam batteries as point defense
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Sunday, November 21, 2010, 1:02 PM

On Sunday 21 November 2010 16:33:14 James Moore wrote:
> I very rarely reply, usually just read, but what if the beams aren't
> in turrets? What if they're in banks ala ST:TNG? Then the tracking
> issue is more a problem of fire control computers and tracking
> systems, right?

Well, I'm more thinking that it might be an interesting game
mechanic (fighters trying to get in close to avoid the larger
weapons), and so could it be justified in a sensible way without
assuming worse-than-modern weapon systems.

I don't watch ST, so don't know what banks are in that context,
but you could have lasers which are directed by mirrors or
gravitic lensing, which would allow instant targeting at any
range - so yes it's possible to come up with a setting in which
it wouldn't make sense.

> >> My reasoning is that the larger the turret, the less able it will
> >> be to track fast moving targets close to it. However, at longer
> >> ranges it only needs to move a few degrees to track the same
> >> target.
> >> 
> >> Thoughts?
> > 
> > Just one this morning.  :-)
> > 
> > Your assumptions above don't take into account scale. If an MU is
> > 1000 miles (I believe that's what someone calculated out for 1
> > thrust point = 1 g), there really isn't any turret tracking slew
> > issues at whatever range.

In the past, I've assumed 1" = 1000km, 8 thrust = 1g, 1 turn =
15minutes (all values rounded for simplicity).

But yeah, with long turns like this it should be able to track
pretty much anything even at close ranges (unless you assume lots
of dodging is involved).

Another scale I use is 1"=1km, 1 thrust = 1g, 1 turn = 10 seconds.
This makes it more plausible. I've got no idea how quickly large
turrets on modern battleships (or whatever the equivalent is these
days) can track.

-- 
Be seeing you,                     
   http://www.glendale.org.uk
Sam.                        Mail/IM (Jabber):
sam@glendale.org.uk 
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l