PSB for the Graser and ATM

Can this list clarify the PSB behind the two new weapons? I am new to the list
but a search of the archive did not reveal any new PSB for these systems.
Apologies if this subject has already been done to death.

The first problem I have with the PSB for the graser is that it’s affected by
screens, which, as I understand the PSB, are EM in nature and affect charged
particles only. To my knowledge gamma rays are uncharged photons of extremely
short wavelength. The only thing that may deflect or absorb them are lots of
lead, concrete, perhaps a vapour shroud or the gravity well of a black hole.
If the Hu’Mans had black hole tech then they should have gravitic drives and
such shields would deflect anything! I could also think of a few problems,
like it could be similar inside to being inside a cloaking field.

The second PSB problem for me is the anti-matter missile, if its hit
(fail a threshold roll) while still in the launch tubes I fear (for my ships
anyway!) there would be a reasonable chance (greater than 50%) they would
detonate and eliminate the carrying ship. Lets face it
anti-matter, once released from its containment does not require a
detonator. Even if, as one source suggested, they just “fizz” rather
than explode, the gamma rays released as the anti -matter is annihilated
by normal matter would probably be enough to sterilize the ship, leaving it to
the enemy, although it would require some decontamination!

My own preference would have been for a bomb-pumped particle beam
missile powered by a standard fusion warhead, which could operate identically
as the AM missile does, an area effect weapon. (PSB;
several/many focusing lenses per bomb) One advantage the bomb-pumped
particle beam is the PSB angle that research to improve it leads logically (at
least more than most PSB) to grasers via improved lasing mediums and gravitic
focusing lenses etc, thus neatly linking the two
systems. However the major benefit from my point–of-view would be there
would be no ((little?) chance of an unintentional detonation. (I would
have said X-ray laser, but then there is the shield problem again.)

I realize that the stats are such for play balance, but can we have some PSB
which can make it easier to suspend disbelief. It could be as simple as a name
change.

Regards

In message <20040322182240.43182.qmail@web25209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
> Ian Downing <iandowning112@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Can this list clarify the PSB behind the two new weapons? I am new to

> The first problem I have with the PSB for the graser is that it’s

Correct.

> The only thing that may deflect or absorb them are lots of lead,

Actually, _all_ of the fleets in the fleet books use gravitic drives
(KV & SV just use _better_ ones :-), however, you point is
otherwise valid.

> [quoted text omitted]

[snip AM Torpedo comments]

> I realize that the stats are such for play balance, but can we have
One option would be to adopt 'PSB Neutral' names for these, such as 'Heavy
Beam' for Grasers (a bit bland IMHO, but the best I can think of ATM) and
'Nova Torpedo' for the AMTs, when the 'granddaddy' of the AMT,
the 'Anti-Matter Salvo Missile' was proposed on the Weapons and Defence
Archive, I suggested 'Nova Salvo Missile' as an alternative - which
stuck :-).