Eamon--
You are correct that the reason is because of atmospheric performance. We
wanted to have lasers out there that were AS EASY TO USE by the players as
possible, and if they wanted to fire it at an incoming aircraft while
sitting at the starport and found out it didn't work, that seemed like it
would take a whole lot of the fun out of "I've got a laser turret." A
whole lot of work in all of the lasers, the CLC rifles, etc., was to find
a frequency "sweet spot" where they'd work well in atmo, and that's where
we put the shipboard lasers as well.
Dave
> One thing I did find puzzling about TNE was that whilst X-ray lasers
> became an option at TL-13, according to FF&S, they never featured in any
> published designs. I found this odd, given their advantages - lower power
> needed, giving the option of high ROFs at much lower impacts than the
> conventional Grav-focused lasers. Disadvantages were lower ranges, and an
> inability to conduct planetary strikes in any appreciable atmosphere. The
> former might be offset by a greater chance to hit at range X with the
> higher ROFs (Antony, you seem to have a good handle on this - what do you
> think?) the latter could be considered a game-stopper by a navy that wants
> dual-purpose weapons.
>
> Eamon
You are correct that the reason is because of atmospheric performance. We
wanted to have lasers out there that were AS EASY TO USE by the players as
possible, and if they wanted to fire it at an incoming aircraft while
sitting at the starport and found out it didn't work, that seemed like it
would take a whole lot of the fun out of "I've got a laser turret." A
whole lot of work in all of the lasers, the CLC rifles, etc., was to find
a frequency "sweet spot" where they'd work well in atmo, and that's where
we put the shipboard lasers as well.
Dave
> One thing I did find puzzling about TNE was that whilst X-ray lasers
> became an option at TL-13, according to FF&S, they never featured in any
> published designs. I found this odd, given their advantages - lower power
> needed, giving the option of high ROFs at much lower impacts than the
> conventional Grav-focused lasers. Disadvantages were lower ranges, and an
> inability to conduct planetary strikes in any appreciable atmosphere. The
> former might be offset by a greater chance to hit at range X with the
> higher ROFs (Antony, you seem to have a good handle on this - what do you
> think?) the latter could be considered a game-stopper by a navy that wants
> dual-purpose weapons.
>
> Eamon