Re: Fixing salvo missiles

--- J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 think there are a number of
> fixes that could be
> made without going all the way to the "moving
> missile counter" method.
> 
> The following ideas can be implemented independant
> of one another.

IMO, the best way to fix them is delete them from the
universe... like the Highlander 2 movie.
 
> Idea #1
> The "# of missiles lock-on roll" is my biggest
> gripe.  Replace it with
> a lock-on roll for each missile in the salvo.  The
> missile must roll
> the required # or higher to successfully lock on the
> target.
> 0-1 MU = 1+
> 1-2 MU = 2+
> 2-3 MU = 3+
> 3-4 MU = 4+
> 4-5 MU = 5+
> 5-6 MU = 6+
> (option: missiles which fail lock-on try against
> next closest target,
> etc. until all possible targets exausted.  If
> missiles from a salvo
> attack more than 1 target, maybe split salvo for PD
> purposes)
> Missiles suffer -1 to hit per level of ECM
> (enhanced, superior) and -1
> per level of stealth hull.

SMs are dumber than dumb.  They are like a flak load
and the target basically runs into them, so there is
potential for a total miss.  To say that SMs can now
seek another target misses the point of SMs. BTW, are
you planning to now say that SMs have a 54 mu range to
account for the additional fuel load, now you have to
increase the mass of each missile to account for the
additional fuel, oh, and now I need to account for the
smarter electronics (i.e. targeting at up to range 6),
so increase the mass some more...

Are you halving the targeting range when using vector
movement?

ECM has no effect on targeting systems by the FB. If
you do that then I want the opponent to roll 4+(1d6)
to lock a fire control onto my ships [one try per FCS]
for my using ECM systems in normal space and I can't
be targeted in a nebula.  It might open a Pandora's
box.
 
> Idea #2)  
> Salvo Missile Racks are really underutilized.  To
> encourage their use,
> change SMR to 3 MASS & 12 PV (4 per MASS) or 15 PV
> (5 per MASS)

I wouldn't use them EVEN IF thats all there is.  For
that mass, give me a pulse torpedo.
 
> Idea #3)
> 1-arc SML = 2 MASS
> 5 arc SML = 4 MASS
> if also adopt #2 above, 1- and 5-arc SMRs have same
> mass as
> corresponding SML, but 4 or 5 PV/MASS.

 (see comments under idea 5)

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

Don't like it, otherwise you may as well move ALL the
weapons into that protected status.  I think that's
the risk of having explosive warheads and fuel in such
close proximity to each other when being hit by large
destructive measures.  I know that the grunts (at
least) accept that risk.

> Idea #5)
> change SM magazine to 3 MASS for 1st salvo, +2 MASS
> for second salvo,
> +1 MASS per additional salvo, and 6 PV per salvo.

Make the weapon system better and cheaper.  Sounds a
lot like SFB to me.  Not today nor tomorrow.

> Idea #6)
> Change ER missiles to be interchangable with
> standard SMs, but have
> +50% range (compared to standard missiles) and 1d3
> damage.
> Add Long Range (LR) missiles with +100% range and 1
> pt damage.
> Add Heavy warhead missiles with -33% range and 2d6
> damage.
> Add X-Heavy warhead missiles with -50% range and 3d6
> damage.

ERSMs and SM are interchangeable when using the SML. 
Might ever so grudgingly look at it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?	Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com