Re: [FT] SMLs and Banzai Jammers

> Missiles
> >already have a lot of dice rolling associated with them (PDS
> >and damage),
> >adding another one is unappealing.
> 
> Exactly, spawn of satan.

I've been reviewing all of the ideas that people have come up with on
the list so far regarding messing about with ^H^H^H Fine-tuning the SML
rules. And the comment above seems to me to be very germane here.

Now again, this is very much IMHO but I really like simplicity. Some of
the suggestions would make SMLs into quite different beasts, things more
like multi-warhead MT missiles.

Dean Gundberg: 
> Currently SMs ignore fighters so some mass discrimiation must be built
in.
> I don't see much of a problem stating that it can be set to ignore
anything
> smaller than a frigate's mass.

Good point. A logical reason why there should be some mass
discrimination.

Anyway, keep the suggestions, good, bad and ugly coming. Some hadn't
ocurred to me at all. Some I've thought about and discarded. But getting
someone else's view is always a good thing, and I have been known to
change my mind when comfronted with irrefutable logic....

Some things to ponder:
a) What's the minimum change that would remove Banzai Jamming as being a
100% defence vs SMLs <note: making it a 50% defence is OK>
b) What's the minimum amount of extra work for the player, so speed up
the game. Work includes die rolls, sorting through counters,
book-keeping, but not decision-making.
-- 
	      http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|	    xxxxx	Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |	xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.edu.au o O*OO^^^^OO*O o oo     oo oo	 oo  
		       By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale