Re: balancing Fighters and different SM loads

>Tom Anderson wrote:
>> yes, you did say that: your rules seem clear and consistent. however,
i
>> would object that they differentiate between ships and fighters: if
>> everything in the blast area takes at least 1 point of damage,
shouldn't
>> fighters be destroyed instantly, a la nova cannon? i can't see why
>> fighters would be immune to the blast (although you can prove
anything
>> with PSB). note that this would make the SM-B a very effective
>> anti-fighter weapon, which is not what it was intended for.

Jerry Han muttered:
>Oh damn.  Grrrr.  I didn't think of that.
>
>I guess, in the spirit of the weapon, an exploding blast wave would
>tend to wipe out small stuff in its path.  (8-)

Blast wave?  In vacuum?  Over 1000's of cubic km?

The "explosion" actually sends out thousands of mini-missiles with a
limited
seeking ability.   Fighters are larger targets but have better
countermeasures than missiles do (missiles don't complain about high
casualty rates).   Therefore missiles are more likely to be destroyed
than
fighters.

(This is similar to my Pseudo Scientific Baloney for the Alarishi
Antimatter
Cloud Projector a.k.a. Wave Gun, so this leap of logic was not from a
standing start).