Re: Re: RE: [GZG] Fighter rules Questions...

However, I was sort of thinking about some shifting of the order of
movement, too, which just is WAY too complex to consider. Far piece to
go
to give SML's the same flexibility as beam weapons. ;->=

Well, unless I get a chance to play soon, which is not an impossibility.

I guess my limited experience is that ships with large missle bays
seldom
get to flush them, and the option of a good fighter killer in a pinch is
worth the risk. Killing a destroyer seemed worth an SM if you lacked
other
good targets. *shrug*

Note, no numbers were crunched in this cogitation. I'll keep your
benchmarks in mind!

The_Beast

Chris wrote on 05/24/2006 09:25:39 AM:

> I said:
> >> Not unless you house-rule an anti-fighter missile warhead.
> >> I'd consider that a waste of a salvo.
>
> Doug said:
> >House rule could be massaged, I'd think. How about the
> full number of anti-fighter missles deploy into a
> squadron, and then each rolls to hit? If that's BEFORE
> fighter defense, I'd think it might be worth including in
> a large missle bay.
>
> Generally a SM is overkill on a destroyer, and a fighter
> group is worth about the same as a destroyer, which is why
> I say that shooting an SM at fighters is wasteful.
> The other problem is timing. Fighters move after SM so
> you'll never hit the fighters--unless you mix the anti-
> fighter SM with a batch of normal SM that the fighters are
> obligated to attack. You might force teh fighters to burn
> an Endurance, but using a SM is an awfully expensive way to do that.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l