Re: [FT] Fighter vs PDS & Soapbubbles

>One random thought I had (vaguely recalling some previous comment) was
about
>PDS effectiveness.
>
>If PDS can attack every incoming fighter/missile, but reduce hits to
>6+reroll (b-1 on 6, noreroll).  However this creates some additional
>problems in that it will be difficult to get capship missiles (with
their
1
>hit) through average PDS.

Was this my idea? Actually, it was a good deal more complicated than
that;
you'd have a limited number of 'free' squadron attacks after the first
PDS's 'bolts' before the subsequent squadrons started having PDS rolls
against them.

While not trying for either PSB or 'realism', I was thinking of the
example
of WWII carrier strikes. They were designed to have several squadrons
hitting at once. The 'anvil' was to cause the ship's captain to have to
choose between dodging bombs or attempting to rake torpedoes, but it
also
had the effect of causing gunnery to be split between high and low level
attacks.

In the actual case, the Americans' attacks were successful BECAUSE of
separation, as the failed torpedo bombers drew off the CAP, leaving the
dive bombers almost clear skies. However, I said I wasn't trying to
match
reality exactly. ;->=

The two parts to the equation is how many squadrons attacking does it
take
to swamp a PDS suite, and how many squadrons can you synchronize for one
simultaneous attack. The second number gives you how many squadrons
attack
before you start allowing PDS damage again. Adjust the numbers in each
case
to make excessive fighters more vulnerable.

Admittedly, capship missles should be individual strikes, but that's
something I'll leave someone else to PSB out...

Did that make sense? I'm home, and I STILL can't find my books to check
the
mechanism for PDS's.

The_Beast