Re: FT: Thought on Orbital Bombardment...

> true.  My point is, that different situations render
> different results.  Comparing a whole planet to just
> either a city OR an island is faslling short.

Okinawa had cities...  The point is that the closest approximation we
have
to space warfare is the Central Pacific campaign.  Vast distances, and
importance of islands (planets) as staging areas.  You only attack and
capture the islands (planets) that you need.  The rest, you neutralize
it's
usefulness to the enemy and keep on moving.  If you stop to take every
island (planet), you will only get yourself bogged down, and return the
initiative to the enemy.

> No.... because the whole comparison between naval guns
> and beam weapons has some obvious flaws. Beam weapons
> are precise, directed beams of energy with very
> focused points of damage.  Naval guns sling shells
> that explode, scattering their fun around.

Naval guns designed to pierce heavily armored ships make very bad
howizters
to lob high explosives at soft targets.  Your assumption is that beams
fire
just one burst.  My assumption is that beams fire a large number of
pulses
that sweep an area.

> Yes, it is.  Read your DSII -- artillery missions
> AUTOMATICALLY hit where you designate.

You're probably right there.  I quit playing DSII a couple of years ago,
so
I haven't read the rules in a while.  I much prefer the old Traveler
game,
Striker.  It is much more realistic because anything can go wrong, and
usually does to some degree...

> And hit that spot on the grid with a beam.  Assuming
> you were spotted for by a FO, depending on how quickly
> he can designate and call you in, will there still be
> anything in that spot? How far from the actual opoint
> of impact would a beam do it's damage?

Ship board sensors will make moving arround very rough for the defender.
Think great big huge super dooper recon satelite.  As for the FO, it
shouldn't take any longer then calling in friendly dirtside artillary,
ie,
you've got as good a chance that he'll still be there.	And if he does
move,
you may not need that FO...

> You might have enough beams to fill a grid section
> with enough points of damage to simulat 1 ortillery
> battery.

Depends on which ships with which weapons are there and the type of
planet.
Beams are only really good against O1 and O2 planets, except the
Sa'Vasku.
But it takes alot of power for them to attack T planets.  For example
the
Sa'Vasku Elder Broodship will have 4 dice for orbital bombardment of a T
(earth type) planet.  That assumes that it hasn't lost any power
generators.
That's the largest Sa'Vasku ship with the most power generator's in the
FB2...

You know, the only thing you are convincing me of, is that I've gone too
far
reducing beam damage for orbital bombardment.  Note: CLASS 3 BEAMS AND
SMALLER HAVE ZERO DICE OF DAMAGE FOR ORBITAL BOMBARDMENT OF EARTH TYPE
PLANETS.  Class 3 beams have 3 dice against an asteroid.  2 dice against
a
type O1 (Earth's Moon), 1 dice against a type O2 (Mars), and ZERO dice
agaisnt type T (Earth), type O3 (Titan), or type ST (think terran planet
with an atmosphere to dense for humans to live on that even class 4
beams
can't bombard).

> And your extrapolation is based on assumptions on how
> weapons deliver damage that don't apply to FT weapons
> the same way they do to historical weapons.

Nope.  Guns fire HE shell that explode causing damage to a large area.
Beams fire multiple pulses that sweep a larger area.

> Both good points, except they have no bearing on FT
> Beams.  they may not have been specialized for those
> tasks, but by nature of HOW they did WHAT they WERE
> specialized for, there was some natural carryover that
> allowed them to fulfill those other missions, even if
> not optimized for it.  But that doesn't mean that ANY
> weapons system will be just as cross-applicable.
> Consider the sniper rifle - deadly in it's chosen
> role.  Would I take a sniper rifle into a bar brawl,
> in a windowless bar, when I was inside it?  I'm not
> saying that's a parallel to using beams for
> bombardment.	My point is, just because an axiom is
> true, doesn't make it applicable to all situations.

I'd much rather have a sniper rifle in a bar room brawl then a bar
stool,
bottle of bear, or my bare fist, the typical weapons.  That sniper rifle
will make a really nice club / pole arm that can take a bar stool and
the
guy swinging it apart.	I like pole arms.  But it is a little hard on
the
scope...  Well, your axiom about a sniper rifles in a bar room brawl is
certainly a matter of perspective...  As the way beams in FT work...

ias