Re: [FT] What was WRONG with Railguns??

Kr'rt wrote:

> What with all the reworking and theories and proposals, I don't
honestly
> know what the problem was with railguns?  The hit/damage mechanics
were
> fine.  Damage was acceptable.  What WAS it that started all this?

I suppose someone else has already answered this (there are some 110
mails still in queue to be downloaded, but my ISP has set a new slowness
record - at 6.30 am!), but here goes anyway:

* The MT railguns all have the same damage/Mass (ie, 1.5 unless the ship
is armoured). This leaves you no real reason to use the larger classes -
the R1 gives you the same average damage and range as the larger ones,
but you get a less random damage distribution (due to more dierolls) and
are less vulnerable to losing everything in a treshold check.

* The MT railguns inflict considerably more damage/Mass than beam
weapons
for a marginal cost increase, and have no real countermeasures (not even
MT Kra'Vak armour is very effective). 

* They utterly outclass the Pulse Torpedo (which shares their immunity
against screens) both in Mass and cost - OK, a Mass 3 R3 costs 2 pts
more
than a PT, but it hits more often *and* inflicts on average 29%
more.damage when it does hit, and it is 2 Mass smaller. The FTFB PT hits
as good as an MT railgun, but its damage/Mass rating is still
considerably lower.

So no, I don't think the railgun damage was acceptable - not considering
the cost and Mass of the weapon given in MT. With the 50% Kra'Vak cost
increase suggested on the list, they'd be more acceptable but still
*very* good.

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry