Re: SG-Ortillary

From: "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>

> Which raises a question in my mind. Namely, does anybody else think
the
> dammage/firepower represented by ortillary to be UNDERpowered?

One of the things I'd like to see in FT3 is a more expanded set of rules
for
planetary assaults - especially assaults on Planetary Defences.

The prime objective is to make a set of rules that results in a good
game,
without snapping my disbelief-suspenders too much. I'm also looking at
this
from a very FT-oriented perspective, my apologies.

I see 2 basic types of planetary defences - one for places without a
significant
atmosphere, such as Luna, and one for places with a relatively souplike
one,
such as Earth. The bases on Luna would be like grounded FT ships, and
could
be treated as such. Each "base" might have a firing arc restricted to 3
arcs,
so you'd need 2 for minimal coverage, 3 for safety. You wouldn't have to
pay
for basic structure, nor movement, nor warp, and armour might be cheaper
and
also Phalon-like.
But on earthlike planets, there's got to be a good reason for Ortillery.
Things
like SMLs and MT missiles are too destructive. Beams OTOH could be
heavily
attenuated by clouds and just having lots of molecules in the way, while
Railgun
rounds are both too destructive (they burn up slightly, producing a
Kiloton-range
nuke effect, then a megatonne range effect when they hit) and imprecise.
Outgoing fire from planetary defences would be just as ecologically
unsound.
I
see SMs and MT missiles as being OK, but not Railguns (they make huge
explosions
in the atmosphere) and beams (which are attenuated to innefectiveness).
The ideal weapons for defending Earthlike planets are Fighter Bases.
SMLs
are a
close second, and possibly Plasma Balls too.

As for weapons which attack planets, only Ortillery has the ability to
destroy
the enemy (rather than bust the planet wide open), and crack the armour
of
bases on Luna-like rocks. At least that's the PSB. Any ideas about
simple