Re: MT missiles

On 10-May-00 at 09:59, GBailey@aol.com (GBailey@aol.com) wrote:
> From: Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us>
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on FB3
> 
> On  9-May-00 at 10:55, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (s_schoon@pacbell.net)
wrote:
> > >I would go for the 36" movement (with upto a 2pt turn), 3 turn
> > >endurance, no second movement, range 6.
> >
> > I'd ditch the "ship-like movement" entirely and go with the fighter
based
> > system. I'd agree that there would have to be at least some benefit
> > against PDS, otherwise they'd be too easy to eliminate.
> 
> I've always thought they would be better with fighter style movement,
> move after ships, no radius (must be in base-base contact).
> 
> Too powerful?  With the levels of PDSs most people have evolved to
> I don't think so.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> --------------------
> I know so.  I had a ship hit with 10 MT missiles.  My 8 PDS and 2
> class-1 beams were assigned one to a missile.  I took out 4.
> Thresholded in 1 shot, and this was a big ship with a lot of armor.
> Do not make MT missiles harder to hit with PDS and 1s.
> I don't want to play "Missile Command in Space".

Dodge man, dodge.  That two point turn at the midpoint equates to
a 1 poing turn at the beginning.  Don't let 10 missiles get you
in their cone.	If you can be hit with 10 MT missiles think what
would happen if someone were using salvos on you.  If you can
force your opponent to throw away missiles of whatever type you
have the advantage after they are gone as you should have a bigger
weapons loadout.

Roger