Re: [GZG] Monster ships

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThat Mass four
is a reloadable system. MT is only ons shot rack unless you use one
persons idea. I'll see if I can find it. Maybe lost to internet
malstrum.

--- On Wed, 1/13/10, Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@comhem.se> wrote:

From: Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@comhem.se>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Monster ships
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 3:11 PM

Charles Lee wrote:

> 1. As to MT missles dying 50% to Anti-air defences is like sayin lets
use a 50 caliber machine gun to kill a inbound Scud. Ain't a real set of
odds. The MT missles were smart and bigger than a fiter.

Nope. It is however very much like using a ~30mm autocannon to kill an
inbound ASM, which is exactly what today's gun-based PD systems do. (OK,
some of them use 25mm or 40mm autocannon instead, but you get the
point.)

Also note that an MTM is only about as big as a Full Thrust fighter,
which is destroyed by PDS on a 4+. The missile itself is not Mass 2; a
fair bit of that Mass is the missile hardpoint mounted on the ship. For
a comparison, look at the Mass 4 SMR where we know that the missile
salvo itself is only Mass 2 (since that's how big an SML reload using
identical missiles is) - leaving 2 Mass, ie. 50% of the system's total
Mass, for the rack part of the  salvo missile rack.

> 2. They use fighter kill rolls on salvo verses whats in the book.

Interesting. Haven't seen that one described at all before, actually...

Regards,

Oerjan 
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l