Mines

At 10:35 AM 4/4/97 +0300, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
 The rules are contradictory.
>How to make mines more worthwhile? Ok, mine-laying isn't a typical
battle 
>activity, but the strategic cost should be reasonable. Specifically,
how 
>come no one puts a missile warhead in a mine?
	I agree that Mines are currently not worth the bother.	I've
seen
too many capital ships act as mine sweepers with their heavy sheilds. 
Given
that a single torpedo shot from a fighter costs 3 point and causes 1d6
damage with no shields and given that a mine costs 3 points apiece (1
for
the rack), I have them make a 3d6 beam attack.	This means that it has a
1/36 chance of doing 6 points of damage with an average of 2.5...  This
less
capability offsets the ability to sit there indefinitely during the
game.
  I recommend that for a strategic game that a minefield can be
maintained
but requires a Mine tender and a certain number of points per strategic
turn
to replace those mines that fail, are destroyed by micro meteors, etc.
  I also think that Torpedo Bombers be able to carry Mines as well, I
use
them as Sub-chasers against cloaked ships.  This obviously means that I
let
mines attack cloaked ships.
  I also use missiles to deliver mines.  At a cost of 6 points apiece
they
carry one mine each.  Since a single torpedo fighter carrying a single
mine
would cost a little over 6 points this seems to work, although the
missile
takes up more Mass.  Maybe the Missile should carry two mines or one 4d6
mine...
  All of these techniques I use to combat Kravak and cloaked ships.  It
would be a fun scenario to play a convoy with a CVE and a couple DDs
against
a small wolf pack of Cloaked ships...
  Phil P.