Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

["john tailby" <John_Tailby@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update


> >From: john tailby
> > These rules just seem to make missiles a no brainer.
> <snip>
> > These weapons look very complicated.
>
> Is it just me, or do these two sentences really not got together?
The rules for the weapon system is very complicated compared to other FT 
weapons.

However the effect of this weapon system is so powerful as to make it an 
easy decision for fleet designers. Any weapon system that is a must have is 
too good to include.

If you want to make the missiles more seeking then why not let them burn 
some endurance after the ships move. Gives them a bigger engagement envelope 
for people that can't guess.

If you play with ships moving slowly say 6mu / turn in cinematic then 
missiles do a pretty good job of seeking.

If you play with ships operating a bit more like fighter planes operating 
about the same speed as the missiles then you have to guess the course of 
the enemy ship. This is pretty much the same way as most missile systems 
work today. You predict where your target will be, aim the missile into the 
basket and then have the target run into the terminal guidance range of the 
missile. Its also how homing torpedos work.  You have to get your torpedo 
into an engagement range before the enemy realises it otherwise they can 
react and evade.

If your PSB has missiles achieving relativistic speeds or their own hyper 
drives then they might act like the rules proposed. In which case the 
defence would by FTL inhibitor fields. But neither of those technologies are 
consistent with the published background. 


_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l