Re: Descriptive design system idea

In message <199703142213.RAA20457@cliff.cris.com> Mike Miserendino
writes:
> James Butler wrote:
> >>I do think missiles need revision. We can PSB that missiles aren't
> >>ever likely to get in close for a direct hit (too predicable a
> >>trajectory vs. point defense) so detonate at a distance. That would
> >>make a missile like a mine with an engine. Push the damage from a 
> >>mine up, and drop missiles down.
> >
> >	   I think we have to assume that missiles can't get a direct
hit (I
> >have a little trouble believing these ships could survive the
detonation of
> >a nuke on the hull...)
> 
> FT missiles are described to use something like detonation laser
warheads
> where the missile does not impact against the target.  It just
detonates
> when in range, focusing the x-rays pumped from the explosion of a
nuclear
> device at the target in one powerful blow.

Are they? I can't find that particular prose.

This is, however, much like how mines are described, which is what 
propmted me to make the comparison.

What should the damage from mines/missiles be? Six dice not-
affected-by-screens would put a missile warhead on a level with
two submunitions packs, and that seems fair to me.

-- 
David Brewer