Re: [OFFICIAL] Missile Ideas

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, <Mark Andrew Siefert> wrote:

>	I don't know.  Beams must be have a direct line of sight to a 
> target in order to work.  Missiles are a little more flexiable.  Jon's

> rules recognize the fact that missiles are more manuverable than a
stream 
> of sub-atomic particles.

I really don't see what that had to do with the number of dice rolls.
 
>	Immune to *DAFs?

They pretty much already are... and:

>   You mean no matter how hard I try to shoot 
> down an incoming missile I'm still missile bait?  That doesn't make
the 
> current situation better.  It kinda puts us back at square one.

Nope, that's why the damage is much less.

>	How about spend more mass and/or points cost to purchase extra 
> missile ammo?

You can just buy more missiles. Maybe launcher 3pts/1mass and each 
missile 3/1... it would give missile ships more endurance without 
endangering saturation attacks... but it would make submunition packs 
much less worthwhile.
 
>	Why?  A warhead strength is usually "fixed" no matter how far 
> away a target is.  Beam weapon damage potential is dependent on the 
> range, how much energy to pump into the weapon, and other factors.

Why? Because high damage *is* the problem with missiles. IMHO, they need

to be put on a more equal level with submunition packs (which are 
considered, I quote: "one-shot packs of short range, unguided 'scatter' 
missiles" (FT, p.18)) and that's how subpacks already work. Why add 
mechanics when existing ones work just fine?

And *DAF can't shoot subpacks down either.

>	ARRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH....I've always hated these specialty 
> missiles.  EMP missiles I can buy, but neddle missiles?

They already exist. You don't have to use them, though.

--
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
Http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |