RE: [FT] OFFICIAL RULING REQUEST (was Re: Couple of questions)

-MWS- wrote:

>However, if that's the actual answer, I don't like it - not a bit. 
While
>the Salvo Missile is a wonderful abstraction of the Weber/White missile
>paradigm, the MT 'Capital' missile makes a very nice representation of
the
>Wing Commander style of Torpedo, and I think that I can make a fairly
>strong case for treating the two missiles systems differently as far as
>point defense and fighter interceptions are concerned.  As far as I'm
>concerned, the MT 'Capital' missile has enough disadvantages -
centerline
>launch only, no rear-arc attacks, limited mobility - to warrant it's
>increased effectiveness against PDS.  Otherwise, it becomes a fairly
>useless weapons system as far as damage / points cost / mass cost
tradeoff
>are concerned.

Sorry I haven't waded into this discussion yet... I've been meaning
to... 
the search for employment after being suddenly layed-off has kept me
busy.

It's important to remember that there are also several	advantages with 
the MT missiles that haven't been mentioned (or maybe I missed them in 
earlier emails on this thread).

1) The engagement range is 54" for MT missiles instead of 24" (or 36" if

you care to use the extended range Salvo Missile).  To be fair, the
three 
turn movement process on the MT missiles does provide the enemy with a 
change to turn an run for it (or to streak on by), however it provides a

way for the firing ship to keep pretty much out of direct fire range.

2) Another major advantage to MT missiles is their ability to pick their

target from the eligible targets in range.  The ability to use escorts
as 
possible soak off targets versus Salvo Missiles is something the MT 
variety never has to worry about.

3) The final item is the variety of MT missiles available - the normal 
(2d6 damage), the EMP, and the Needle.	This versatility is something
the 
SMLs have no counter part to.  The EMP missile has gained a bit with the

maximum active shielding being limited to two levels of screens in FB1 
and the subsequent shift with ships depending more on armor now. 

Besides the above, MT missiles are smaller in mass, thus making them a 
natural for the Big Saturation Factor".  Being 2 mass in size makes it 
much more likely that a see that massive one shot barrage that I've seen

and heard about in earlier FT games.  The ammo load alone for the SMLs 
(normal range) are the same size as the MT missile.

For instances let's take an FSE ship from FB1 - the Jerez class CA -
with 
SMLs it has the ability for fire 2 barrages of 2 salvos each.  If one 
replaces the SMLs with MT missiles this becomes 7 MT missiles.	To be 
fair we need to replace the SMLs with SMRs so we can get the largest one

shot barrage possible - providing us with 4.5 SMRs.

I believe a base or slow ship would rather defend against the 4.5 SMRs 
than 7 harder to effect MT missiles (of an undetermined variety).  
Granted if the MT missiles were shot up as easily as the Salvo Missiles 
I'd rather go against the MT missiles, however again the MTs could have 
been delivered from further away and thus greatly limiting the chances 
for the missile's target to have returned the favor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Walker			 Mac / Windows Developer
sage@millcomm.com		 Software Engineer
Rochester  MN  USA		 Currently Available for Hire!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------