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
each
>other, so a charged particle beam disperses, and thus has a reduced
>range.

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

If you take a look at the "Gatling Phasers" on my web site, they're
basically
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
for
costs, arcs etc, but does 1 die at 18", 2 at 12", 3 at 6". A type 2 CPB
would
do 1 die at 24", 2 at 18", 3 at 12", 4 at 6" and would be the same as a
type
3 beam for costs etc. (Basically, at 12" a type X CPB does X+1 dice, and
cost
the same as an X+1 beam).

Yes, there is a law of diminishing returns here. Type 1s are the most
efficient
by far. You're better off with multiple emitters rather than one large
one,
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
games
designers on the list? Again, I haven't seen Starship! yet, but the goal
is
very ambitious. Even a partial success would be something to be proud
of.