Re: Planetery Defense Batteries

On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, John Leary wrote:
[snip]
> Micheal,
>      I am rather against the concept of having 'beams' on planets.
> An orbital battle station/s is better for the 'space' aspect of 
> FT.	Another reason, perhaps more valid in game justification
> terms, would be: Ortillery has no reason to exist if the beams
> can reach the ground.  

Well, ground-based defense systems that can reach orbit should be
allowed to
exist - there are just too many good (and bad!) Sci-Fi books that use
this
concept.  You can rationalize it in that the installations of
ground-based
defenses aren't size/weight limited like a shipboard system is, but that
power
limitations and/or atmospheric/weather/gravitic/whatever effects of the
planet
prevent them from reaching beyond near-orbit.

That would still preserve the need for ortillery, yet allow a "well
defended"
planet to install both OWPs (orbital weapons platforms, which can be
attacked
from space), and GDSs (ground defense systems) that must be attacked by
ortillery.

===================================================================
Mark "Hauptmann" Shurtleff
  email: hauptman@sfcmd.com -or- hauptman@concentric.net
  visit the Gear Locker at http://www.sfcmd.com/HeavyGear/

 Finagle's Law:
   The perversity of the Universe tends towards the maximum.
===================================================================