Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

[Jon Davis <davisje@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's neat, but unbalances the salvo missiles in the wrong direction.

An FT3 game was played here in Albany and a salvo missile only fleet crushed
a standard beam and direct fire weapons armed fleet without difficulty.

Quoting Rich Oden:
For whatever it's worth, I tried another game with the
FT3 PD/missile changes recently.  Still seeing the
same problem, missiles have jumped in effectiveness to
the point where a dedicated missile fleet (I ran
against a custom one for playtesting) is just stupidly
powerful.  I deliberately ran mobs of ~30 Mass escort
hulls, all with Thrust-6 and decent Beam and PDS
arrays (which should be fair-to-good versus missiles),
and he still mashed me flat in no time at all, and
that without even using fighters for ordnance synergy.

Jon

Andy Skinner wrote:
> While not having followed all ins and outs of fighter and missile 
> discussions, I think John's idea on moving some before and some after 
> ships' movement is interesting in addressing giving flexibility but 
> not an automatic hit.  I'm piping up just 'cause I thought it was 
> neat, and I'm curious if it was considered in any of the fighter or 
> missile discussions so far.  Since they aren't plotted, it wouldn't be 
> a big time sink to do it twice.
>
> andy
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

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