On the Physics of Repulsor Beams
 

If you use a repulsor beam on something much larger than yourself (like a planet or a much larger ship), shouldn't YOU be the one to get repulsed? (And same with attractors.)

Wouldn't that be a cool way to get extra movement points? And think how valuable it would make small ships in the later stages of the game.

Re: On the Physics of Repulsor Beams
 

Actually, I'd like to use tractors to tow things like bases from one place to another. Build those ringworld and sphereworld components on a high population world with an SY III and then tow the parts to the star. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

(Or starbased-sized defense bases to a threatened warp point.)

Oh, and limit it to within a system, no warp point transits.

Darn, I keep bringing up things in the Starfire rules and pitch for their installation in SE4. Is this good or bad? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/shock.gif


[This message has been edited by Sinapus (edited 08 January 2001).]

Re: On the Physics of Repulsor Beams
 

Yes, I second the motion for the ability to tow bases or other ships, across systems and during tactical combat. I think that you should not be able to tow things through warp points, though. This way, towing would not be unbalancing.

Re: On the Physics of Repulsor Beams
 

About tractor beams, when you fire and hit some ship, that ship teleports right on your own ship. Shouldn`t tractor beam move the enemy ship right next to your ship instead? 2 ships shouldn`t occupy the same space.
And even if 2 ships can occupy the same square, why can`t you fire any weapons?

Also, imagine this: you design a ship that has engine killing weapons, then normal damage weapons, then a tractor beam. This ship`s strategy is set to ´point blank´. Simulate how this ship handles 1 enemy ship with computer in control of both of them. What you`ll see is that once the first ship kills the engines of another and tractor beams it, combat stalls, neither ship moves or can fire. The key to this problem is in the way 'point blank' strategy is defined. I think it just says: 'get as close to the target as possible'. It would be better if 'point blank' was defined as 'get 1 square away from the target'

what do you folks think?

Re: On the Physics of Repulsor Beams
 

Even more interesting... what happens if you create a point-defense repulsor beam? Will a repulsor beam push seekers away from you? Will ONE one repulsor beam push an entire stack of missiles away? That would be far more efficient than having to blow up each missile with PDC. Should that be allowed? Will missiles "use up" their range as they keep trying to come at you? Or is range calculated from point of origin and they will keep coming at you until combat ends? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: On the Physics of Repulsor Beams
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Even more interesting... what happens if you create a point-defense repulsor beam? Will a repulsor beam push seekers away from you? Will ONE one repulsor beam push an entire stack of missiles away? That would be far more efficient than having to blow up each missile with PDC. Should that be allowed? Will missiles "use up" their range as they keep trying to come at you? Or is range calculated from point of origin and they will keep coming at you until combat ends? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is VERY interesting idea. I MUST give it a try.

Re: On the Physics of Repulsor Beams
 

What happens if you repulse a ship past the edge of the tactical map? Does it disappear? Does it get crushed against the wall? Does it disengage?

Re: On the Physics of Repulsor Beams
 

Missle range is the distance it has traveled not the distance from the spot it is fired from. With enough movement points your ships can keep the missles running in circles.