Re: UNSC beta and FB3

[Charles Taylor <nerik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <6.0.3.0.1.20040312170719.042a5070@m1.853.telia.com>
          Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 

[snip]

> 
>  >Anti-Matter Missiles:
>  >Two points.
>  >1)  Instead of a new missile system with questionable PSB, we would
>  >rather see an expansion of salvo missile systems into a comprehensive
>  >family
> 
> The AMT isn't exactly "a new missile system". It is a cross between two 
> missile systems that were around before FB1 introduced the Salvo Missiles :-/
> 
> That said, I too would've preferred the AMT to be an SM variant 
> (specifically the Nova Salvo Missile that was thoroughly hashed out on this 
> list a year or two ago, see 
> <http://nift.firedrake.org/weapons/WDA-Missiles.htm#NovaSM>);
> but Jon wants to get the EFSB "energy mine" damage mechanic into FT and I 
> haven't been able to talk him out of it :-/

I also would like for the AMTs to be a variant of either the SML or MT
Missile systems - also, I don't see why Jon's 'e-mine' mechanic could
be used as a variant load out for SMs or MTMs (in fact, IIRC, the
original proposal for the Nova Salvo Missile, the "Anti-Matter Salvo
Missile" [WotW #1 IIRC] did use an e-mine like mechanic).
Having ATMs as variant SMs or MTMs would make them more versatile as
well, as the launcher could be loaded with other types if required. 

[snip]

> 
> Later,
> 
> Oerjan
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
> 
Charles