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
not 
including area effect for Shadow Beams.  In retrospect it makes sense my

imagination that they are hideous enough to swipe through many ships -
just 
look at any WWII diary written by any regular G.I. Joe and all German
tanks 
they encounter are Tigers.  Battle seems to become bigger in the eye of 
memory.

--Peter

>From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
>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.
>
>
>-----
>Brian Bell
>bkb@beol.net
>-----
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Peter Mancini [SMTP:peter_mancini@msn.com]
> > Sent:	Friday, January 05, 2001 10:37 AM
> > To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> > 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.
> >
>[snip].
>
> > --Peter  :-)
>

_________________________________________________________________