"J.A.F.O.":
>1) I recently shelled out on a copy of Hard Times (wot no virus?) and
>was intrigued by part of one of the scenarios in which the evil (boo
>hiss) pirate is tricked into stealing this ship with a nuclear damper
>in the cargo hold, when said baddie stores his nukes in there this
>device renders them PERMENANTLY inoperable
>............ comments any one?
>If this is the case in the Trav' universe then surely you might be
>able to use one to tidy up radioactive messes?
We assume so in our games. Standard Imperial policy after using
nuclear weapons is to clean it up with a damper so the marines can go
in.
>2) A long while back I posted some queries about how many of you had
>had cross species romance/physical liasons going on in your games and
>how you reckoned soceity might view it. I got a deafening
>silence..... anyone new out there got sommat to contribute.
I suspect romance could happen, physical liaison probably not. Wrong
sexual cues form the aliens - they are probably no more sexually
exciting than a tree. Though I do have a human character who thinks
female Aslan are "intriguing".
>3) Additional point
> Has anyone thought how dumb imperial archaeologists must be to not
>have realised WHO the ancients were?
I wonder how they EVER figured it out, myself. They have 421 (or
somewhat fewer) DIFFERENT cultures and technologies. They don't even
use the same kind of screws from site to site. So how did ANYONE ever
leap to the conclusion that they all belonged to one race?
Rob Dean:
>I don't. At least not yet. Look at it like this. For smaller
>weapons operating over a _short_ turn, a laser does MW damage if
>pulse, or 2*MW damage if beam. A ship sized beam laser should do 500
>points of damage in combat--more if the turn length is considered.
>If it doesn't, then I'll design my ships with the smaller weapons,
>nyet? The principle is good, but the math is bad. This reminds
>me--have we _ever_ come to any agreement on whether lasers actually
>shoot at their targets at far orbit range or whether they just slash
>around hoping for a random hit? If the latter, then a low damage
>might be justifiable (but it should increase as range decreases, not
>from differing beam strength but from increasing time on the
>target). If the former, then the damage should be larger (or the
>damage from vehicle mounted weapons should be smaller.)
I assume that the lasers are aimed exactly at close range, and may
hunt a small amount at long range. Big question is how stable the
firing platform is, and MT seems to assume that the firing platform
has point-defense FC. If so, it's about as stable as it gets, and
lasers should only have to hunt to deal with the uncertainty of the
target's position at long range.
BTW, why not use the rated damage from the table in the PLayer Book? It
covers all shipboard weapons nicely, without having to make up another set
of numbers.
Later...
- -- Via DLG Pro v0.991
[email removed]
I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
--W. von Braun