RE: Fixing salvo missiles

G'day,

> We have gotten our house rules for Salvo Missiles to where we like
> them, and although I have given up trying to get salvo missiles really
> fixed officially...

I'm sorry I have a really bad memory of late, could you please remind me
what it was you found broken about the SMs as is?

> The "# of missiles lock-on roll" is my biggest gripe.  Replace it with
> a lock-on roll for each missile in the salvo. 

Out of curosity about how many salvos would you fire in a game and what
would be the typical number per turn? Thinking of the games we play,
where we can have more than 40 salvos go off at once, your suggested
changes would make for a lot of dice rolling ;)

If I remember correctly you play in vector. Have you found the "drop off
in chance to hit" as an alternative solution to just dropping engagement
ranges to3mu in vector? 

> (option: missiles which fail lock-on try against next closest target,
> etc. until all possible targets exausted....

As someone who sees a fair amount of her missiles go "target, what
target?" I'm not immediately opposed to the idea (beyond the potential
complexity of tracking which missiles are going where). Could someone
with a greater knowledge of missiles with warheadlettes explain if its
plausible (it probably is I just don't know to judge)

> Idea #3)
> 1-arc SML = 2 MASS
> 5 arc SML = 4 MASS

Nice idea.

> Idea #4)
> SM magazines take threshold checks as protected systems (like Core
> Systems)

Do you find you lose a lot of magazines or is there some other reason
for the suggestion?

> Idea #6)

I am partial to the idea of multiple warhead types for missiles.

Cheers

Beth