Re: Maritime Strike Bombers

In message <p05100909b73c45778074@[157.166.130.123]>
	  Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

[snip]
> >
> >Alternatively, each bomber carries 1 longer ranged missile, off the
cuf
> >I'd say treat as an MT missile with reduced warhead strength (1d6
damage
> >as opposed to 2d6).
> 
> Then why carry these compared to the torpedos with a 4-6 damage, 
> aside from the Standoff range?

The standoff range - no other reason ATM.
> 
> Also the general idea is the allow the same mix of EMP or Needle 
> missiles as well in these "Air launched" MT Missiles.

Well - this is very much a first draft - would upping the long ranger
version to 2d6 damage & allowing EMP & Needle warheads be unbalanced
(perhaps re-balance by reducing range/endurance?) (As we've seen EMP
weapons are a can of worms anyway :-).

> 
> Still all of the variant ideas has me thinking. I'm going to have to 
> sit down and compare the ideas and try to figure out the better 
> balance here.
> 
>
I'll be interested to see the results.

Charles