Bombardment and Beams

I think someone (with a bit of materials or 
physics math) could illustrate the amount of 
energy required to damage current steel 
structures. 

I think someone else could show the amount of 
energy density required to achieve that and the 
amount of raw energy you'd have to throw at a 
given square ten km box of space to generate 
that. 

I think the answer would be amazingly large. 

This is why I assume beams are pinpoint 
accurate weapons that direct very focused 
energies in extremely specific locations and why 
the name of the game in the FT time period is 
*fire control* *fire control* *fire control* 
sensors. 

Fire, Fusion and Steel (a Traveller thingie) had a 
good explanation of why this would be an 
ironclad pain for lasers (and why gravitic lensing 
is almost a must). Even absolutely minute 
differences in angles of focus make huge 
differences of energy density in a beam fired 
over thousands or tens of thousands of kms. 

Which brings us to bombardments. I suspect a 
ships beam is powerful and focused. But it may 
not be tuned to go through atmosphere (it is 
tuned for vacuum combat). Fire control sensors 
are designed to pickup stuff against the 
ambient stellar background, not through an 
atmosphere on the ground. And the power of 
the weapons, though large, is not enough (IMO) 
to obliterate cities, etc). Otherwise we'd see a 
vastly different style of ground combat in DS2 
and vastly different vehicle designs. And fighters 
designed for vacuum operation (starfury 
anyone?) probably suck rocks in an 
atmosphere. 

So, I suggest that the specialized ortillery ship 
is in fact called for (and lo and behold, the rules 
provide!). The ortillery ship has multiple ortillery 
modules, point defence, and maybe some B1s 
for close in defense. The ortillery modules 
deploy OSM (Orbit to Surface Missiles) and 
specialized anti-surface beam weapons (that 
perhaps are high-powered to burn through the 
atmosphere but tuned for the task). The 
ortillery ship also has an ability to integrate with 
airborne and surface recce and fire direction 
systems to give it a good chance of hitting what 
it wants. This includes with RPVs, recce sats, and 
the like. The Orbital FC ship also probably 
deploys a constellation of satellites loaded with 
munitions so that it can attack anyplace, 
anytime on call (instead of being victim of 
orbits). These work a bit like RenLegs Thor 
Javelins. 

And it seems to me their ought to be a Ground-
Attack type fighter, specialized for in-
atmosphere assaults and surface and 
atmospheric envelope target engagements. 

Most of the preceding applies to planets with a 
terran atmosphere of earth-ish density. As you 
thin out the atmosphere, normal starship 
sensors and beams become more viable, 
though still less specialized than those on a OFC 
ship. 

Having such things makes the game more 
interesting. It presents assets that FT fleets 
have to defend (transports too, but OFCs and 
orbital C4I centers as well). It also restricts the 
domination of the campaign worlds to navy, 
navy, navy. If you want to play SG or DS without 
constantly applying the "hostile atmosphere" or 
other artificial constraints, then there had better 
be a way to prevent a single corvette (or even 
a small fleet) from threatening any surface 
combat action without specialized assets. 

It seems to me that the variety of ship designs, 
of tactical complexities, and of campaign 
scenario options offered by this type of 
interpretation makes it the most supportable 
from a game interest perspective, especially if 
you want to play everything from Grand 
Strategic down to Skirmish level games. If the 
Navy dominates and orbital superiority is the 
whole situation, then none of the ground games 
are worth rolling out most times. 

----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas Barclay
Software Developer & Systems Analyst
thomas.barclay@stargrunt.ca
----------------------------------------------------