Re: Armored Missiles

On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Chad Taylor wrote:

> I've noticed that some people on the list have complained that
Missiles
> are too powerful.  This has been the opposite experience in our
campaign.
> What we have seen is the mounting of 3-5 PDAF on a large Capital (100
> mass) and smaller ships mounting an ADAF and maybe a PDAF as well. 
Fleet
> encounters usually mean that a typical missile will have to survive
about
> 8-12 dice of AF fire.  Not many get through.

Has your group experienced standard hit and run by missile cruisers??  A

heavy missile cruiser armed with 4-6 standard missiles with a fleet of
6+ 
at a standoff distance of 54" is pretty bad.  Most raids will have 6 
cruisers fire everything at one capital ship.  24-36 missiles at one 
target with time on target means it would take 24-36 PDAF's/ADAF's to 
stop them.  It only takes 4-5 hits to cripple or destroy a capital ship.
 
The cruisers then FTL away.  Net cost 24-36 missiles for 1 capital ship.
 
A pretty good trade in any system.  Rules modifications hve been made to

try to prevent this occurence since it makes perfect military sense - as

provided by Desert Storm, and the entire Cruise Missile concept - to use

cheap expendable ammunition instead of risking expensive ships and crews

to direct fire.  
	The modern navy is built to defend against this tactic using 
Aegis Cruisers and CIWS on nearly all front line ships.  Several rules 
modifications have been made to try to reduce the effect including
allowing 
fighters/interceptors/fast fighters to intercept missiles, forcing 
missiles to move before pre-plotted movenent is revealed, and increasing

effectiveness of point defense systems vs. missiles.
	Just try being on the receiveing end of a huge missile salvo, 
watch your fleet disintegrate and see the enemy FTL away before your A 
batteries can come to bear. Now that's annoying.

--Binhan