Re: [FT] Should all Beams fire at fighters/ordinance?

--- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> On 13-Jun-01 at 17:12, David Griffin
> (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
> 
> > I always thought the PDS looked like it was
> modelled
> > after the CIWS system on American ships or the
> > similar system on Soviet ships (even has it's own
> > fire control radar just like the PDS). The anti
> > missile role on modern ships would be stuff like
> > the sea sparrow and the standard, right?
> 
> Yes, but sea sparrows are extremely close range, for
> all
> practical purposes you could treat sea sparrows and
> the CIWS as the same in a game scaled like FT.
> 

I would think the game machanics would be different.
And missiles are one time use not continuous like
a gatling.

... As far as I can tell (and it's
> not my area of speciality) anything that can target
> a missile can target a fighter.  Still a PDS.
> 

Well, missiles aren't as good a maneuverer as a
fighter can be, but it was not my intention to
imply that an interceptor missile couldn't 
target a fighter.

> Remember though, I am more concerned about play
> balance
> than I am about reality.

As well you should be.

I'm a fan of diversity. Sure you can use beams
for lots of science fiction weapons, but in 
reality there is a lot of differences between
disruptors and hellbores and phasers and I think
it would be nice if there was enough diversity
in the available FTIII systems to more closely
model SF concepts than there is now. Likewise,
pulse torpedoes are great weapons, but modelling
photon torpedoes and romulan plasmas, it would
be nice to have more diversity there too.

I'm not saying I want a complicated game, but
I would prefer several potential defenses with
their various advantages and disadvantages to
calling everything a PDS and shoehorning it to
fit.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35