Re: [FTFB] Not ships, exactally. . .

Nathan Pettigrew wrote:
 
> While I like the concept of defsats and I'm sure a set of rules for
> "micro-thrusters" could be developed, I would wonder how they would
actually
> fair in play.  As stationary targets they would be a prime target for
SMs.
> Obviously Defsat 2 could protect itself and other defsats in range,
but
> could be overwhelmed (one missile hit and it's all over).

It's not one-on-one, you ought to buy a slew of these things.  I put
together a package of these guys which included a small (100 mass)
battlestation, costed less than a dreadnought, and had some serious
throw-weight.

> On the other hand, they would make a cheap sponge for your opponent's
SMs
> instead of your ships.  : )

At 12 points a pop, you are breaking even, points-wise, if he fires a
SMR at them.

John M. Atkinson