RE: FT-HH LAC`s

HH Missiles (suggestion):
Mass 2.
Fire from SML Launcher/Rack.
Endurance: 6
Movement: 24mu, may make upto a 2 pt turn (ala MT missiles)
May burn 1 endurance ONCE for terminal guidance (ala second move for
fighters) of upto 6mu, but then is dead if no target is in range.
Treat as Salvo Missiles for PDS, but give PDS + 1 on rolls. Most of the
missile damage was from overwhelming the PDS defenses.
Treat as Salvo Missiles for damage (alternatly 1d6 per missile that
hits).
Cost you will have to balance to the rest of the HH universe.

The other option would be to cut beam/P-Torp weapons to 1/3rd range.
That is Beams would have range bands of 4mu and P-Torps would have
range bands of 2mu. And use normal SML ranges/effects for missiles.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net	  
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bif smith [SMTP:bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 6:21 AM
> To:	full thrust
> Subject:	FT-HH LAC`s
> 
> I was having a discusion off list with oerjan ohlson about designing
HH
> universe ships for FT, and complaining about the lack of range of FT
> missiles for HH universe ships, if you use limited arc energy weapons
> (i.e.-Cl-3 bats). Oerjan sugested using phalon pulsers, to represent a
> short
> ranged, massed battery of limited arc human weapons. This has awoken
some
> ideas in my, rather rambling, brain case. I though about allowing
humans
> to
> have a pulser weapon, limited to close range band only, with the same
PDS
> as
> a Cl-1 bat. Making the mass and cost the same as a phalon pulser would
> make
> this weapon deadly at close range (the only range it could be used),
and
> rather expensive compaired to normal human weapons. This still leaves
the
> problem of the limited range of the FT missiles (compaired to the HH
> missiles), but have ignored this to allow my mind to continue.
> 
> As for the reason for this meandering ramble from my warped mind, lets
> continue-
> 
> HH LAC
> 
>  MASS=24    COST=85
>			      MASS    COST
> B.HULL		 ---		 24
> HULL(W)		  2		  4
> DRIVE T=12	      14	     28
> NON FTL	       ---	      ---
> F.CONx1		   1		  4
> PULSER(1a)x1[f]      2	    10
> PDSx1 		      1 	     3
> SMRx1 		     4		  12
> 
> I think this qualifies as a "egg shell with a howitzer" class of ship.
> I`ll
> leave others to think about the HMLACC MINATOR, or I may post a
> design/ramble/cock up for it later.
> 
> In case anybody`s curious, the problem I`m having with the HH missiles
is
> the ratio of missile range of 3x that of the energy weapons ON MAX
> BURNOUT.
> If set for MAX ENDURANCE, the range increases to 12.5x that of energy
> weapons against sidewalls/sheilds  (i.e.-VERY long ranged if the
energy
> weapons have a range of 12M.U.). If anybody has any ideas for
> long/variable
> range missiles that could be used in this respect, please let me know.
I
> know that DW give specific figures for missile/energy weapon ranges in
his
> book, and the ranges and accelerations for FT have been work out and
will
> not match, but it`s the relative differences between the weapons that
> matter
> (after all, FT is a non-specific system to represent starship combat).
> 
> Any comments anyone?
> 
> BIF
> 
> P.S.- I posted some designs for the arachnid ships on the full thrust
> ships
> registery, and was gently explained where I was going wrong compaired
to
> the
> starfire designs. In thinking about the ACID class SD, which should
have
> close range, high damage, sheild affected weapons, I now prefer using
6
> arc
> pulsers instead of plasma torps, which are long ranged, high damage,
> ignore
> sheilds weapon. This makes them very dangerous at close range, which
was
> the
> idea for these ship originally (I think). I may have to go back and
> redesign
> all the ships in light of new ideas.
> 
> P.P.S.-Ignore any spelling mistakes, as my spelling isn`t very good.