Re: Fw: Weapons for Newtonian based FTIII

> 24", which equals 0" when the foe can take a running start and
accelerate
> the cloud to, say, 100" velocity well off board.

And of course, opportunity fire wouldn't be allowed.

> big enough lump of rock and ice, take a running start around the
system
> and sling it on a collision course.

I suppose from that perspective the only defence would be proactive.
You'd have to go after the foe while they were still setting up to
launch. This would mean that sensors would have to be very good.
Whatever, it doesn't sound like it would be a lot of fun to play a side
that has to sit in one place and accept its fate when the other side got
around to delivering it.

> With planets, you can always justify that people would want to
capture,
> not destroy them, but stations are small enough to be destroyed out of
> hand.

But what sort of intrinsic value would a station have. Surely it would
(or should) be a much greater victory to capture a station rather than
destroy it. I think I would perhaps regard the destruction of a base I
was attacking as somewhat pyrrhic.

> > Especially as missiles have no range restrictions.
> Oh, but they do: 3x 18" move plus 6" attack radius. Unless you mean
one
> of the unofficial variants.

Hmm, I was going by memory, good thing I don't rely on it for everyday
survival <grin>.

 Why would these weapon systems have been invented then. Surely if the
most effective way of clobbering an opponent is to lob a chunk of rock
at him, then the department of technical boffins would have concentrated
on improving Large Rock Delivery Systems(tm) rather than wasting time
and money on weapons that aren't effective in combat. It sounds like the
existing weapon systems, especially the ranges, don't quite fit into the
paradigm that we want them to.

Dan