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

--- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
...
> 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.
> 

A modern carrier group has multiple layers of
defense -- Fighters --> missiles --> gatlings.
FT dispenses entirely with the middle layer
of defense and gives us essentially the inner
and outer. Gatlings seem like PDS to me. Fighters
are fighters, though no FT fighter has the capability
our F14's of today have with their Phoenix 
missiles, mores the pity.

The role of the sea sparrow or standard or any
other medium range SAM is not represented in FT
at all. They would be the "interceptor missiles"
which would possibly intercept salvo missiles or
more likely MT missiles. Since Mt's are supposed
to be pretty big, it probably wouldn't take all
that agile a missile to take one down, especially
if it could just get close and then set off a
nuke, cloud of metal, or other area effect.

> 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.
> 

If you want to envision your PDS as missile 
batteries that's fine. However, I would point
out that all other missiles in the game are
limited by magazine space where a PDS is not.
The implication is that the PDS is kind of a
laser gatling. Of course this is by no means
certain.

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