Re: Couple of questions

At 10:24 PM 2/1/99 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 99-02-01 21:38:01 EST, you write:
>
><< Nope, a supplement. MT Missiles are now rare, and used by none of
the
> major fleets, as SMLs are both easier to use and more effective. But
> more costly too (twice as much). >>
>
>They are also harder on PDS, a VERY good thing.
>-Stephen

Only to a point - consider this:  MT Missiles *still* require a 6-only
to
hit with PDS / Class 1 / Screening Fighters.  If you work out the
statistical average amount of damage inflicted per weapon system, you
end
up with the following:

Each SM salvo does an average of 3.5 dice of damage (undefended) for
12.25
points of damage per salvo.  An MT missile does 2 dice of damage
(undefended) for 7 points of damage.  Each PDS 'kills' an average of 0.8
dice of SM and 0.33 dice of MT missile (reasoning?  there is a 1/6
chance
of killing both dice of the MT missile, or a 5/6 chance of missing.  1.6
*
2dice = 1/3 or .33 over the long average).

Here's a table of the average damages for both missile systems.

 #     SM salvo        MT missile
PDS    dice  damage    dice  damage
---    ----  ------    ----  ------
 0     3.5   12.25     2.00   7.00
 1     2.7    9.45     1.67   5.83
 2     1.9    6.65     1.33   4.67
 3     1.1    3.85     1.00   3.50

Screening fighters are worth their weight in gold for missile defense.
Each full squadron 'kills' an average of 2.4 dice of SM and 2 die of MT
missile.  This does mean that fighters are more effective in screening
against MT missiles - and PDS is *less* effective against MT missiles
than
against SM - but that makes a certain amount of PSB sense to me.  

===================================================================
Mark "Hauptmann" Shurtleff
  email: hauptman@sfcmd.com -or- hauptman@concentric.net
  visit the Gear Locker at http://www.sfcmd.com/HeavyGear

 Finagle's Law:
   The perversity of the Universe tends towards the maximum.
===================================================================