Re: My final word on missiles

On 11-May-00 at 04:02, Mikko Kurki-Suonio (maxxon@swob.dna.fi) wrote:
 
> Interestingly enough, most of these games were in a campaign. The
funny
> thing about campaign games is that typically one side wants to run
away
> immediately, and nobody wants to take any losses. That's what gave
birth
> to the missile swarms. And then everyone started stocking up on
> interceptors, since that was the only thing with any chance of
> cost-effectively shooting down the missiles (house rule gave fighters
> better chances to better fit the game background, under vanilla I
think
> they'd have sucked just as bad as PDS). In the end, the fleets were
about
> 1/3 missile boats (a maxed out DDG was popular), 1/3
carriers/interceptors
> and 1/3 actually able to slug it out. 

Sounds like the campaign rules needed work.  The bit about needing
supply
ships to move missiles to the front along with costs for the missiles
themselves are making them much less popular in our campaign.  Heck,
playing FSE style I had to withdraw from a world and let my opponent
have it because I mishandled the supply line and didn't have enough
punch to fight.

> And btw: There are no hard rules for ammo resupply costs either. (The
> problem with those is that they often make all ammo-using weapons too
> expensive to use in a campaign environment -- which, frankly, is
pretty
> realistic if boring)

We were just doing 1NPV per mass of the weapon.  SMs take 2 (or 3) each,
submunitions take 1.  At this I think I'd do MT missiles at 2.	It
wasn't painful but it did limit my ship production a bit.

Roger