Re: [FT] Railguns

[various snippage throughout]

>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, John Crimmins wrote:

>>	To hit, RGs must roll HIGHER than the distance to the targer (in
>>inches,
>> centimeters, or whatever scale you are using) on 3d6.

>problems that i can see are:
>- weapon's effective range is only about 15; beyond this, hit
probability
>drops too low. this is very, very short compared to beams and missiles
>- weapon's actual range is unlimited - 18 is a hit at any range
>- rate at which hitting gets easier falls of at very close range - not
>much difference between 5, 4 and 3 inches, and no difference between 1,
2
>and 3. not that much fire combat occurs here, of course.

I agree here. The average range of even a class 3 battery is only 9.5"
with
this system. Interesting mechanic, but if it's to work, it needs some
sort
of multiplier.

On the other hand, the bell curve result you get from rolling dice in
this
manner doesn't really reflect the accuracy of a projectile over range.

>>	Damage is equal to the roll 1d6 per class of the weapon (2d6 for
>>class 2,
>> 4d6 for class 4, etc.), with no rerolls; half of the damage (rounded
down)
>> is applied to armor, and the rest to the target's hull.

Without getting into the re-roll part of it, this damage seems a bit
high.
A Class 3 weapon will do an average of 9! points to anything it hits.

>>	Option the Second: Allow the firer to reroll sixes on his to-hit
dice.
>> This extend the maximum range of RGs to, in theory, infinity and
beyond,

Better, but range would still be quite limited on the average.

>>	Railguns should be one-arc weapons, I feel, but how should the
KV
>> manuever?  I think that they should use the Vector system, with all
of
>> their Thrust points, as the best adaptation from MT.

This I agree with mostly: limited or restricted arc might be a better
phrase 3/2/1 or 2/1/1 for the various classes would seem right.

Schoon