Nifty idea, Charles.
> 1) Support Ground operations by rapidly transporting personnel and
> 2) Perform boarding actions against enemy spacecraft or
This could simply be used as the PSB venue for "standard" bording operations.
> 3) Act as a form of salvo missile launcher
Similarly, this could be an alternate PSB for an SM system (w/o special
transmitter rules). Exactly the same mechanics, but a different
description - witth the potential added bonus that "magazine ships"
could hang 36" back from the action and refill the frontline magazines by
transmission.
> 4) Act as a form of Plasma Bolt Launcher
The system you detail adds some interesting new mechanics, but as written,
would you ever buy Matter Transmitter missiles over Salvo missiles? Or a
Plasma Generator over a PBL? The mystery of the target is
not, I think (without the benefit of seeing it in action), sufficient to
merit the extra cost of the system.
Again, pretty much every mode described _could_ simply be seen as
alternate PSB's for standard functions requiring no real rule mods -
only flavor text changes. Pulse Torps could be redescribed as Matter
Transmitter Bombs. Even Beams could be redefined as Matter Chippers - a
Matter Transmitter attempting to "beam away" pieces of an opposing ship.
I like to see a function for a system like this that would not be a
repackaging of an existing effect. Boarding/Ground support operations
(and/or crew unit abduction), which are still fairly open to definition,
seems the best areas so far.
Hello everybody
Back from a nice holiday :-)
Noam Izenberg schrieb:
> Nifty idea, Charles.
As far as I understands Charles' proposals, they are based on a 'Star Trek'
type matter transmitter (Trasporter Room) that only needs a transmitter at one
end of the transmission (either as sender or reciver)
Another type common in SF is the transmitter system that needs machines
at both ends (see e.g.the Stargate Film/TV series). This would not
allow their use as a weapon shooting bombs, plasma bolts or whatever. Nor for
boarding actions as we can be sure that in wartime, receivers would be
switched off or set to receive only from trusted sending stations.
But there are still a number of possible uses. Following Charles' List:
1) Support ground operations: Drop an advance party by conventional means.
They set up a portable receiving station and you can transmit in the troops.
Or have special forces take an enemy transmitter station and switch it to
receive the attackers' troops. 2) Boarding actions: similar to case 1, send in
an advance party to set up a receiver.
3/4/6) No direct use as weapons, but as Noam also suggested, use
'magazine ships' to refill light front line
gunships/carriers/minelayers.
> Bizarre Hempen Analog (Noam Raphael Izenberg - pass
Noam, Do you make your name anagrams by hand? Or by some program?
Greetings
KarlHeinz said:
> Another type common in SF is the transmitter system that needs machines
Depends on how willing you are to expend your gate.
In message <B1B6DED6-AEB4-11D6-A3AA-000393071770@jhuapl.edu>
> Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> Nifty idea, Charles.
> by transmission.
Hmm... re. your comment about the cost - IIRC (I did the calculations a
while ago) I based the costs on those of the SML system.
The basic intent was a weapon system based on the Displacement Pods from
Ian M. Banks 'Culture' novels - hence the plasma generators and short
range missile (warheads).
One thing you should note, the higher grade Matter Transmitters allow for
boarding actions ate a much greater range than normal.
I'm tempted to remove some of the restrictions on Matter-Transmitter
assisted fighter launches (i.e. the 'cant attack on the turn they are
transmitted one).
But yes, the Launch Short-Range Missiles & Plasma options _could_ be
replaced by an SML + PBL combo.
Capturing an enemy transmitter also has the benefit that his other stations
might still consider it a trusted transmitter. At least for long enough to
send troops or WMD through.
> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> 1) Support ground operations: Drop an advance party by conventional
I guess I will play spoiler and go back to when Startrek was somewhat new and
I was a physics major at collage.
First the "transporter" converted matter to energy and then transported it a
given distance and then reassembled it. Another name for this conversion of
matter to energy is TC (Total Conversion) which will give energy yields
in the order of antimatter (matter + antimatter = TC).
The average H-bomb converts about 1/1000 of the matter to energy
(deutronium -> helium + energy). I suppose I could figure out how much
deutronium is present to start with but let's face it I'm older and it is not
really important. So your average crewman who is transported
will have a potential bang equal to 1000 to 10,000+ times
greater then your average H-bomb of today ( lets say stratigic weapons
of around 5 megaton). In other words if you goof with a transporter
you have just created a continent / world destroying bang.
On the other hand a transporter that links two points in space is OK by me. I
would suggest that unless there is a transmitter and receiver that the
transport point wanders so that your landing force is scattered. The scatter
is dependent on how far the transmitter is from the point to transport to with
someone able to fly the point (sort of) so you don't step out 1,000 feet up or
under.
> --- Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net> wrote:
I would suggest that unless there is a
> transmitter and
It't not a problem unless one is short of paper towels or sponges.
Bye for now,
In message <7ca676654b.Charles@nerik.monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>
> Charles Taylor <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Hmm... re. your comment about the cost - IIRC (I did the calculations
[snip]
Hmm... replying to myself again (tut tut), anyway, I recalculated the costs, I
think something when wrong the first time (again)
Revised Matter Transmitter Costs:
For all grades, the MASS is 3 times the class:
Basic (Range=12): Cost = 4 times MASS
Enhanced (Range=24): Cost = 8 times MASS
Superior (Range=36): Cost = 16 times MASS
(I might reduce the MASS to twice the class, and increase the cost multipliers
accordingly).
-or should I increase the ranges (say by +6mu or +12mu) with a cost
increase?