Re: EW

On 12-Apr-00 at 20:41, Thomas.Barclay
(Thomas.Barclay@cbu.xwavesolutions.com)
wrote: > 1) Tony pointed out that we don't want a holy grail scenario
for EW. I
want
> to point out that it isn't going to be that way if we keep 2 things in
> mind: basic designs should include some ECM/EW capabilities
intrisincally
> (thanks Mr. Beast!) and everything costs points. If point costs are
right,
> then an EW ship will be no more "grail like" than a SM ship. And all
the
> fleets out of FB may have additional EW ships - Jon (Saint of Needham)
only
> ever shows us a fraction of his universe's wonders...
> 
> 2) Regarding passive being slower than active: Yes, Roger(?)

Not me, but I go off the deep end often enought that it was probably a
pretty good guess.

I haven't been paying attention as much as I should because I'm still
working on my perl module.  I'm having to be careful because I not
only want small task force actions I also want to be able to handle
White Haven taking Trevors Star.  I have to get fairly automated to
handle that.

HH Mechanic, tell me what you think.

The Star Kingdom has superior penetration aids, therefore their 
  SMs get +1 on the number die with a maximum of 6.

The Star Kingdom has superiour ECM so SMs fired against them
  get -1 on the number that hit die, minimum of 0.

In order to simulate the longer ranges allow only standard SMs,
they may fire at greater than 24 MU however they have -1 to the
die for for each 12MU range bracket after 24.

Roger