Prev: Re: Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions) Next: RE: Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions)

Re:

From: Charles Lee <xarcht@y...>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re:

I agree on simplest solutions.

Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:Martin wrote:
> Maybe I'm too simple a man, but in essence, isn't lock on already 
> included?
> When we roll a d6 and there is some significant chance that a weapon 
> doesn't hit, what is it modeling?

I feel exactly this way.

Ralph wrote:
> Personally, I would like the "Unspend thrust gives an evasive bonus" 
> idea
> the most.

I like this also, and there have been various modelings of evasive or 
extreme maneuvers posted in the past.

No one will be surprised that I still favor stealth through range band 
modification. And ECM as "+x MU to measured range". Both are simple 
and require no extra step.

---

"Whether you believe you can or believe you can't, either way you're 
right." -- Henry Ford 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?	Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Prev: Re: Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions) Next: RE: Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions)