Prev: Re: Beam Weapons Next: Re: Stealth Fighters

Re: Beam Weapons

From: hal@b...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 13:44:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Beam Weapons

I just wanted to ask people on this list...

  What is the rationalization for each battery type ect?  As in
have always assumed that power requirements, personnel living space,
lifesupport, etc was implicit in the "modular" design.	I consider this
modular due to the fact that you do not need to create an "energy" unit
power weapon batteries, nor do you need lifesupport for the number of
people, nor staterooms... ect.
  By making the cost for mass go up to four per "A" battery, you make
design sequences a little more balanced.  In general, that might be the
better fix, but for now, I can't see limiting the ship to only X number
any one type of weapon based upon hull sizes.  Why?  Because you have to
have a ship that is twice the size, minimum, of the weapon system you
put into a ship.  This means that the smallest ship capable of handling
"A" battery will be a size 6 ship.
  In a recent battle, I just saw two cruisers with two destroyers, take
an identical force.  Force Agressor took a terrible pounding, and lost
the cruiser, two of it's forward firing batteries (out of 3) as a result
taking two threshold checks.  The defender, lost a like amount of
firing batteries with only a single threshold check!  As happens in
sometimes it is better to have redunancy built in rather than heavy
firepower.  Imagine the frustration of a ship's captain, when the
arrays are shot out from under him, and all he has is one, coupled to an
battery.  Larger ships, with more fire control, can afford some minor
damage, but the "A" battery is expensive enough weight wise, to make for
"balanced" enough weapons over all.  I don't have a problem either way,
size the "A" battery finally ends up being...


Prev: Re: Beam Weapons Next: Re: Stealth Fighters