Re: [FT] Should all Beams fire at fighters/ordinance?
From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@y...>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 06:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [FT] Should all Beams fire at fighters/ordinance?
--- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
...
> Yep, and a CIWS is limited by magazine space also,
> ever see it modelled in a game that was playable?
> For game purposes more than 10 shots might as well
> be infinite and not a concern.
>
Which is why the PDS looks like a "laser" gatling
which doesn't have ammo. Yes, as I said, you could
say the physical ammunition is small enough to have
enough for the engagement without accouting for
rounds fired which is why I said you could envision
them as missiles if you were inclined to do so.
I just pointed out that all the stuff in the
game that's called "missile" DOES have ammunition
descriptions.
I haven't participated in enough modern naval warfare
games to know how gatling guns are modelled. They
probably model the numbers of missiles fired from
modern navy ships though.
Lastly, regardless of the fact that the term medium
range means something very different in space games
and naval games, that doesn't alter the fact that
there is nothing in FT that has the "role" that the
medium range SAM has in modern naval warfare.
Fighters are long range, and PDS is last minute
defense as the attack is happening. In FT, fighters
can defend as long as they last all the way from
long range to short range, but there is no weapon
which provides a medium line of defense.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's GZG's
choice. I might suggest that interceptor missiles,
with magazine descriptions would be something that
I'd like to see in FBIII, but if it doesn't happen,
I'll just keep doing what I'm doing now -- using
fighters and PDS.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35