Prev: RE: Kra'vak Armour & Railguns II Next: Gunslinger

Re: Railgun Goals II

From: John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@s...>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:14:15 -0800
Subject: Re: Railgun Goals II

Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> Hello all,
> I've sifted through most of the day's discussion, and I think that
> generally agreed on two points (with a few dissidents ;-) These two
> actually the easiest to implement as well.
> 1) Damage should be constant, without regard to range.
> 2) Firing arcs should be very limited to preserve the K'V "feel."
> That leaves us with the "To Hit" mechanic and the mass vs cost stuff
> hash out.
> a) I'm pretty sure that my original idea for a "to hit" scheme was
> wrong - oops. As I understand it, people want a mechanic different
> Beams - very different. OK fine. I take it that my later suggestion of
> rolling "beam" dice and using the number of hits as a basis for a
> multiplier went over like a sack of mouldy cheese. So I guess I need
> from some one out there with a better understanding of the problem.
> b) I've been swayed towards the heavier mass camp, but I'd pefer them
> not be too massive, if only so we can keep somewhat close to the
flavor of
> the MT designs. I must stress again that these systems must be
balanced to
> avoid the problems that MT caused.
> Once we've hashed out the "to hit" and damage, the mass and cost will
> into place by balancing against beam batteries. So I say that we
> that aspect of the discussion.
> Schoon

     Well, just what are the options for 'To Hit':
Constant : Same as Beams

Short range/Low 'To Hit' number : Basically, what is in use now for 
	  Kra'Vak ships.   With increasing 'To Hit' due to range
and	      constant damage over range. (The Trash Can principle.)

Short range/High 'To Hit' number : With decreasing 'To Hit' due to
	  range and decreasing damage over range. (The Shotgun Effect)

Any other options out there?

Bye for now,
John L.

Prev: RE: Kra'vak Armour & Railguns II Next: Gunslinger