Prev: Re: MT missiles Next: Re: [fh] why justify? was Re: [OT]-Interstellar Trade: A new take

Re: MT missiles

From: Roger Books <books@j...>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:44:12 -0400
Subject: Re: MT missiles

Brian Bell wrote:
> 
> Missiles appear to be one of those hard to balance items (similar to
> fighters IMHO). Make them too strong and the game becomes a boring
fire and
> leave game. Make them a little weaker, and they become too weak.

Put them in a game where the parameters are not a space game but
a smash up derby and they are definately too strong.  Put them
in a game with maneuver and they are fairly weak and only work
when combined with  other weapons.

> 
> Unlike Oerjan, I use vector (not for missiles or fighters), inch
scale, and
> usually fixed table edges (because of lack of room to do floating
edges).

How does lack of room stop you from doing floating edges?  The
setup I am hearing of large scale (inch) and floating  edges
leaves no room for maneuver.  In a stand slugfest where your
biggest tactic is "which ship do I fire first" I would expect
there to be a much bigger problem with salvos than you could
ever have with MT missiles.  I also don't see the game as 
being much fun without maneuver, but hey, that's me.

> 
> Someone (Mikko, I believe) said that when systems are tested, the
extremes
> should be tested. I agree with this.

I don't really think it needs to be tested in all cases.  Get
the high speed and low speed crowds fairly happy with it and
that is enough testing.  We don't need to worry about the
extremes.  Such things as "We only play inches, no floating
table, and have an asteriod every 6 inches" is really
artificially limiting the game.

Anyway, my 3000 point fleet can  handle  your MT missile 3000
point fleet.  3000 points, 15% mass in PDS's and 2 ADFCs on
each ship nicely removes the problem in a low speed game, as
long as my ships stay within ADFC range.  3000 points is roughly
what, 800 mass?  That gives me 120 PDSs and still leaves me
armed.

Roger


Prev: Re: MT missiles Next: Re: [fh] why justify? was Re: [OT]-Interstellar Trade: A new take