Re: FT-Number crunching required (HELP)

BIF wrote:

> > However... these masses and costs assume that the standard MTM is
itself
> > balanced against the SMR. At the moment there's, um, quite a few
different
> > opinions on how true that assumption is <g>
>
>If I may be so humble, there is definately a inbalance between SM`s and
MT
>missiles.

I know. Some

>Ignoring the dammage potential differences of the 2 missile systems 
>(which, the laser head equalises), there is the point of the PDS
required 
>for intercept of the 2 systems, which work against the MT missile
better 
>(or worse, depending on your viewpoint <G>) than SM missiles.

Take a look at the tables Beth posted again; they compare 1 SMR hitting
a 
target protected by 1 to 6 PDSs with 1, 2 and 3 MTMs hitting the same 
target. The MTMs need to hit the target with just over 2 missiles to
"break 
even" compared to the SMR (or just under, if the target is very weakly 
defended).

Because of this the main problem with the MTMs is *not* their
vulnerability 
to PDSs, but instead that the movement mechanics specified in MT give
them 
far too low a chance of hitting a target in the first place. If you
change 
the MTM movement to a fighter-style system, their hit probability
increases 
massively.

I'm currently playtesting Alan's "simplest" MTM version as well, and so
far 
I like it (at least for Cinematic; haven't had a chance to try it in
Vector 
yet). The "variable" version feels a bit too short-ranged though.

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry