Re: WotW #5 AFHAWKS

In message <003b01c0b5c1$d70ad1e0$46b4893e@inty>
	  "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]
> Yes, but if we just kept the interceptor pod rules we would need to
increase
> the mass of the weapon over the 1 mass I was after (because if it`s
one
> mass, it allows a escort missile ship to carry a large amount of ammo
and
> uses up the odd mass left over from using er ammo). My feeling is if
we want
> to use 1 mass per round (well, I do anyway), we need to give it
limitation
> in other respects, and the example given of only half as effective
against
> missiles etc is one way of doing this.

Well, lets have a look at the MASSes:

SML		  MASS 3, COST 9
AFHAWK		  MASS 1, COST 3

Pod Launcher	  MASS 3, COST 9
Power Generator   MASS 3, COST 6 (for 3 power, enough to run the Pod
Launcher)
Biomass 	  MASS 1, COST 2

The pod launcher requires more mass, but remember that both the power
and the biomass that are needed to run the pod launcher can be used for
other purposes, and that loads for the pod launcher do not need to be
pre-allocated at the beginning of the scenario - I don't know how much
these benefits are worth, but note that 1 biomass costs _less_ than one
AFHAWK salvo!

But there's probably still enough difference to make an argument for
AFHAWKS having either reduced arcs (to the 3 of the SML), reduced range,
or even both. As a rough guess, I'd say either 12 mu range, arcs as SML,
or 9 mu range, 6-arc.

As regards the effects, I agree with Beth, why invent a new variant
mechanic, when we can use the existing (and hopefully tried and tested
by now :-) mechanic of the scattergun and interceptor pod?
> 
> BIF
>  "yorkshire born,yorkshire bred,
>  strong in arms, thick in head"
> 
> PS-The ignore heavy fighters bonus is because I don`t care how heavly
> armoured a fighter is, when hit by a big enough warhead, it will go
bang
> just like any other <G>.
> 
Yes, the operative word is 'big enough warhead' an AFHAWK could well be
firing several hundred or more mini-missiles :-)