Prev: Re: [OT] Starship vs FT Next: Re: [OT] Starship vs FT

Re: Starship! and FT, from the author

From: aebrain@d...
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:20:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Starship! and FT, from the author

>I am considering the difference between neutral and charged particle
>beams - assume the beams in FT are neutral. Charged particles repel
>other, so a charged particle beam disperses, and thus has a reduced

(PSB time) But are easier to generate: magnetic fields can manipulate
particles, which means you need less generators to get the same energy.
there is a limit to how strong your magnetic fields can be without
the rest of the ship: much insulation is required for the larger

If you take a look at the "Gatling Phasers" on my web site, they're
multi-use submunitions packs. These fill the bill quite nicely.

A type 1 CPB (Charged Particle Beam) is the equivalent of a type 2 Beam
costs, arcs etc, but does 1 die at 18", 2 at 12", 3 at 6". A type 2 CPB
do 1 die at 24", 2 at 18", 3 at 12", 4 at 6" and would be the same as a
3 beam for costs etc. (Basically, at 12" a type X CPB does X+1 dice, and
the same as an X+1 beam).

Yes, there is a law of diminishing returns here. Type 1s are the most
by far. You're better off with multiple emitters rather than one large
and range is restricted.

These make great close-in weapons. Unlike Submunitions, they don't
ignore shields:
but you get unlimited shots, and multiple arcs, for only 2x the cost.
But when
compared with a Type 2 beam, they're about on a par.

On another topic, aren't we lucky to have not just one, but 2 gifted SF
designers on the list? Again, I haven't seen Starship! yet, but the goal
very ambitious. Even a partial success would be something to be proud

Prev: Re: [OT] Starship vs FT Next: Re: [OT] Starship vs FT