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

David Griffin wrote:

> --- 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.

FT fighters are arguably more capable than F-14's by any yardstick that
you can imagine.  The problem is that everythings else has improved to
the point that F-14 like capabilities are hardly special.

>
>
> 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.

The real problem is that any game mechanic for stand-off missiles would
make the game more annoying to play, without making it all that much
better.  If standoff anti-fighter missiles are placed marker weapons,
fighter movement must be pre-plotted, or they are too effective/
worthless (placed after fighter movement)/(placed before fighter
movement).  They are still worthless if the fighters can use their