Re: Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

[<laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Doug Evans
>I figured you understood the first time; I know I did, 

You probably didn't have a high school graduation with all the relatives visiting, the all night grad party, and all the clean up. I'm going to plead a severe caffeine deficiency.

>and you can sound a bit sarcastic, even unintentionally. 

moi???

>I thought the whole idea was something other than direct fire

I thought the whole idea was to get something which feels like a missile, which IMHO salvo missiles as written do not.

>What were the velocities in the playtesting you did?

Don't recall, probably 10 at start and approaching 20 by end. We sometimes get to 25 or so, but usually not.

>Have to give this point to John; how you place the SM marker is 'getting it into engagement range'. Not getting your SHIP into engagement range, 

Um, I read John's para as meaning that your job was to get the SHIP close enough that the target didn't have time to detect the launch and evade.

John said:
>> >If your PSB has missiles achieving relativistic speeds or
>> their own hyper drives then they might act like the rules
>> proposed.

What I proposed was a move distance of 18mu, which is fairly common for ships and fighters. I don't see why a missile shouldn't be capable of it. I concur that 30mu might be a bit much; if you recall, when I suggested that, I implied that shooting targets at the edge of your envelope would mean you'd used up most of your delta vee and make you more likely to miss--and that would make it a lot like PTorps.

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