Re: Fw: Weapons for Newtonian based FTIII

(Mikko Kurki-Suonio) iterates:

>> There are other things you can do to enhance your station's survival
in
>> this matter. An optional rule (that has been discussed in the dim
past,
>> and I cannot remember who came up with the idea first) would be to
allow
>> Interceptor fighters the capability to engage missiles. Then no doubt
your
>> base will be equipped with a fighter bay or four.
> 
>I personally use that variation, and it does work against vanilla
missiles.
>But momentum-based weapons can defy fighter screen on sheer speed
alone.

One could always drift back to the 'allow fighters to accel/decel as
ships'
thread, then.  ;-)

>> Another thought is...where are the base's support ships? Or are you
>> postulating a scenario in which a base is stand-alone against an
enemy
>> fleet? Maybe it's just me, but I think that'd be a silly
scenario..unless
>> the enemy doesn't out-range the base in weapons. And if the enemy
out-
>> ranges your base, well, that's what the supporting ships are for.
While
>> the enemy ranges your base, your support ships range the enemy. How
you
>> go about doing this is entirely up to your tactical staff.
>
>Maintaining my calm posture, I will re-iterate:
>
>Goal: I want a fight AROUND the station, because such scenarios are 
>fun. This is gaming, and gaming is all about having fun. For me, at
least.

Fun?? Fun??? What's this 'fun' stuff ah see pop up heah periodically?

>Fact: Missiles and momentum-based weapons can destroy an immobile
target 
>from outside that target's weapon ranges. Consequently this is a 
>zero-risk proposition.
>
>Result: Defending fleet must stop the attackers before they get within 
>launching range of the station.
>
>Result: The station will never get to shoot at anything, since the
battle 
>is decided entirely outside its weapon ranges. So why put any guns on
it 
>in the first place?
>
>Conclusion: The fight around the station becomes a fight away from the 
>station. The goal is not achieved.
>
>Is this crystal clear now?

1) I'm *pretty* sure my reply above was a direct response to a point
raised
   in someone else's post (Phil's?),
2) Your point/position was never in question,
3) Outlaw missiles (as I mentioned earlier),
4) Construct scenarios which prevent certain tactics (aforementioned
   missiles/momentum-based weapon usage)

Mk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
All that is gold does not glitter,
     all those who wander are not lost.

http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~indy/index.html