Re: SG-Ortillary

--- Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:

> things.  Yet these weapons are
> considered worse for planetary bombardment than
> ortillery is... which leads
> me to wonder just what sort of specialized horror
> ortillery really ought to
> be portrayed as, 

I refuse to acknowledge plasma bolts IMU.  The idea of
an area-effect weapon in space in the scale ships
fight in is unsupportable.  Which means Phalons don't
exist, which is fine because I find the minis to be
ugly.  No one will miss them.  

IMU, Ortillery consists of metal (tungsten?) darts
under much less acceleration than a K-gun would have. 
It would have an ablative nosecone, and directional
control rockets.  Adjustable velocity so that if We
have to punch a hole in a mountain to take out a
NORAD-equivelant you can, but if We want to drop 50 of
them on a tank batallion and kill every tank without
laying waste to the entire city you can do that too.

Other options involve modifications to the SLM. 
Instead of bomb-pumped X-ray lasers, they could be
outfitted with submunition dispensers or multiple
large warheads designed to penetrate armored
structures, or FAE warheads, or whatever else We want.
 This has the added advantage of being the main
armament of Our stealth destroyers (cloaking devices
are NEAT) which allows us to get in an initial strike
on the planetary defenses.  It also has the advantage
of being simply a different kind of ammunition, not
weapon.  So the same ship could be configured for
anti-ship strike or land attack, or both on the same
mission.

Using main guns of ships (particle beams IMU) is a
last resort due to residual radiation effects.	We
don't like residual radiation effects.

Obviously this will require some serious house rules,
and that's on my List of Things To Do.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!