Re: Thoughts on FB3

From: Indy <kochte@stsci.edu>

>aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:
>>
>> * MT missiles - here we need to consider the things, as we
now have a directly
>> competitive system (SMLs) and fighters no longer move 12" vs
18", but 24" with
>> a possible extra.

I'd say 2 turns at 24" plus a 6" secondary movement (which keeps
the total move at 54" as current); OR use 2x36" instead of
2x24", which lets the missile be faster than most fighters (no
human pilots to keep the gees down) and gives you a weapon with
a range suffciently longer to be worthwhile.  Still attack
selected target, not closest; anyone with a reasonable PDS suite
still has a pretty good chance of knocking them down.  Unless we
add in the "ECM-assist" missile we were discussing a few months
ago.

>> Feedback? Do we all agree that FB3 at least should have UN
and IF?
>> Do we all agree that FB3 should have as a target "all the
ships that GZG makes
>> for FT that haven't appeared in FBs 1&2?"
>
>I would like to see Jon's idea on the stats for UN, IF, and
LLAR ships.

If you'd like to lobby for saintly approval of the Islamic Fed
ships on http://www.angelfire.com/va/laserlight/fullthrust.html
(or maybe .htm, I don't recall--if you get lost, just go to
/laserlight/ and look around), I'd certainly be happy.	 Or
suggestions for alternate ships.

Note--I don't guarantee these are exactly the final versions,
particularly in light of relaxing the "10% increment hull"
requirement--I'll likely increase the hul and decrease the armor
a bit on some designs.