RE: Planetery Defense Batteries

Beams might be able to reach the ground, but ortillery is more efficient
& does more damage against surface targets (or underground bunkers).
The old MT has beam armed ships able to do 1 surface strike per class,
while ortillery is 1 per weapon & double the diameter (in SG/DS terms).

Personally, I abstract planetary defences into a Sa'Vasku vessel with
1/2 PF & 6" range bands.  This tends to randomise what weapons are
available to fire (planetary curve, atmospheric attenuation, etc, etc)
but gives a place for surface batteries.  Ships need to enter orbit &
only gain 1d per 5d of normal beam fire, but ortillery acts as an
anti-surface submunition pack (3d).  This gives a good 'feel' to a
planetery assault, as you need to suppress the defences before sending
in assault shuttles, or the PDS will wipe them out in the upper
atmosphere.

PS:  I'm baaaaccckkkk..... from holidays.

'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
They seek him here, they seek him there;
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven or is he in hell?
That damned elusive, Pimpernel.
	- 'The Scarlet Pimpernel', Baroness Emma Orkzy

-----Original Message-----
From:	John Leary [SMTP:john_t_leary@pronetusa.net]

Michael Blair wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> I like 180 degrees (3 arc), horizon to horizon, but a friend has
> suggested 270 degrees (I don;t understand how or why) or even 360
> degrees.
...Snip...JTL
> What do you think?
> Michael.

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.  

Bye for now,
John L.