RE: [FT] Wave Gun (was: OU & IC & FB3)
From: "Peter Mancini" <peter_mancini@m...>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 11:04:10 -0500
Subject: RE: [FT] Wave Gun (was: OU & IC & FB3)
Right! I think it would be very unbalancing on second thoght and gaging
from the opinion of more seasoned FTers. MK makes a good argument for
including area effect for Shadow Beams. In retrospect it makes sense my
imagination that they are hideous enough to swipe through many ships -
look at any WWII diary written by any regular G.I. Joe and all German
they encounter are Tigers. Battle seems to become bigger in the eye of
>From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
>To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
>Subject: RE: [FT] Wave Gun (was: OU & IC & FB3)
>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:50:20 -0500
>I misread what you intended. I thought that
>you meant the area of coverage would be the
>entire front arc (60 degrees).
>Now I see that you meant to have the regular
>cone, but have the long axis of the cone to
>be anywhere in the front arc.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Mancini [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 10:37 AM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: RE: [FT] Wave Gun (was: OU & IC & FB3)
> > >From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
> > >You have the arc WAY too wide for the current wave gun. It is 2mu
> > >wide for the first 12mu, 3mu for the 2nd, and 4mu wide for the 3rd.
> > How is that any different than what I wrote?
> > >>Range 36" (progressive area, 2",3",4" for each 12 inches)
> > Other than the fact that " should be mu as per Fleet Book 2.
> > --Peter :-)