Re: [FT] Should all Beams fire at fighters/ordinance?

On 14-Jun-01 at 09:04, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> The role of the sea sparrow or standard or any
> other medium range SAM is not represented in FT
> at all. They would be the "interceptor missiles"
> which would possibly intercept salvo missiles or
> more likely MT missiles. Since Mt's are supposed
> to be pretty big, it probably wouldn't take all
> that agile a missile to take one down, especially
> if it could just get close and then set off a
> nuke, cloud of metal, or other area effect.

I don't know the "technicals" on a Sea Sparrow, but
I do know that when we tested them from the carrier
I was on it was always within visual range. I would 
consider that a point defense.	With 6 inches being
60K kilometers (?) in FT that would definately make
anti-missile missiles a point defense.

> If you want to envision your PDS as missile 
> batteries that's fine. However, I would point
> out that all other missiles in the game are
> limited by magazine space where a PDS is not.
> The implication is that the PDS is kind of a
> laser gatling. Of course this is by no means
> certain.

Yep, and a CIWS is limited by magazine space also,
ever see it modelled in a game that was playable?
For game purposes more than 10 shots might as well
be infinite and not a concern.