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

On 14-Jun-01 at 07:53, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
> 
> --- 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.

What is your definition of a point defense system?  If
you define it as a gatling (or even beam gatling) then
a Sea Sparrow never will be point defense.  If you
define it as a system that defends a point target by
shooting down enemy missiles then a Sea Sparrow is
a PDS.

I use the second definition.  "My" point defenses are
high thrust missiles that explode into millions of
pellets that impact the target.  Not much good against
starships (although on a 6 they do a point) but great
against thin skinned things like fighters and missiles.