[QUOTE=USS Jack Riley;1453935]
Starship Polaris wrote:
About the weapons/shields issue - there is another option (actually a couple) used in today's miltaries (or in the late design, early implementation phases) that might be useful as a guide.
For example, the Israeli military developed a 2 part counter to antitank weapons (RPGs, etc.). The first is an electronic scrambler that tries to confuse the weapons guidance system. If that fails, the weapon then fires a small explosive projectile at the incoming weapon. The point is not get a skin to skin contact but to have the defensive warhead detonate close to the incoming weapon to either destroy the weapon or cause it to fall short of its target.
Thanks for the encouraging comments.
The solution you describe is the one I like most conceptually, and IIRC it's something
like what David Weber does in the "Honor Harrington" books. In the case of his ships (someone who's a Weber fan correct me here, if necessary) the guidance scrambling part is moot because both weapons and ships are traveling at such velocities that beyond a certain point it would require too much energy for either to veer from their trajectories; their paths will
intersect. OTOH, his ships employ close-in lasers and interceptor missiles to try to destroy incoming missiles.
You know, back to the subject of gravity control for a moment - one of the fun things about space opera seems to me to be the great variety of the high tech stuff in those worlds. If one follows "Star Trek" style gravity control to its solution, not only ought it to be the basis of every weapon and every defensive system - not only is there no justification for worrying about whether the Enterprise can be built or land on a planet's surface - but in principle you ought to be able to build starships out of cardboard boxes and have them be practically indestructable. No fun.