Re: FT Forts

On  2-Oct-01 at 22:38, aebrain@austarmetro.com.au
(aebrain@austarmetro.com.au)
wrote: > 
> Topic 1
> 
> The main problem as I see it with space stations/hollowed asteroids
etc is
> that there's one weapon type where the major balancing factor is
dependent on
the target being mobile. Against an immobile target, the weapon is wayyy
too
powerful for its cost. 
> 
> The weapon is, of course, the missile - be it Salvo or MT. There is a
> similar problem with fighters, but not nearly to the same extent. 
> 
> I've played in far too many scenarios where I had to have at least
some
> missile-equipped ships to take out base stations. Make the bases
stronger to
deal adequately with the missiles without being sitting ducks, and they
become
overly strong against non-missiles. 
> 
> In order for stations (by that I mean any stationary shiplike things)
to be
> useful but not too-powerful, we need to be able to balance them vs
missiles. 
In our campaign the solution fell out rather quickly.  Much as in the
Honor Harrington books, bases are sitting ducks.  If you can't dodge
not only will MT missiles toast you, but Salvo Missiles do the same.
So, all our military bases became fighter carriers.

Our base was:  20 mass, 2 hull, 2 fighter squadrons.
	    
The only real varient could best be described as 6 of these
on an asteroid. 		

The nice thing about the base was you could move them to a new
system with a tug rapidly.

As for station keeping drives, we don't need them now, why should
we need them in the future?  It's much more cost effective to
have a tug tap the base every other year or so.  It's even
cheaper to put it in a Lagrange point.

Roger