For the MT missiles, I use either the fighter movement with 3 turns endurance
and a movement of 24 mu per turn (and 12 mu secondary movement), or another
I`ll post later. With this movement above, I allow PDS to intercept on a 4,5
or 6, except a missile can exchange 1 endurance point to make it harder to
intercept (roll as a heavy fighter, 5 or 6). The PSB for this is the missile
is in sprint mode, burning up it`s drive to make it harder to stop. Yes, this
means it can hit a target out to 42 mu (24 primary
drive, 1 endurance movement + 6 mu engaugement radius), and only be
intercepted on a 5 or 6. My second way to use MT missiles is to allow them 24
mu movement over 3 turns and a 6 mu engaugement radius, 36 over 2 turns and a
engaugement radius of 5 mu, or a range of 48 mu for 1 turn and a engaugement
range of 4 mu, with the same PDS roll to stop on the last setting of a heavy
fighter (see PSB above).
For the fighter intercepting missiles, you have to remember PDS and the
AFHAWKS are fired in the PDS phase, before fighters attack, so you can destroy
a fighter group totally before they can attack anyway.
> At 06:36 2/04/01 +0100, you wrote:
Originally I used the 4,5,6 to hit MT missiles but I have since moved back to
the original 5,6 hit to mentioned in the More Thrust pages.
> Derek Fulton wrote:
> Originally I used the 4,5,6 to hit MT missiles but I have since moved
Um, Derek? The original rule is that MT missiles are hit on rolls of 6 only.
C-batts hit *fighters* on rolls of 5 or 6...
Regards,
> At 06:56 3/04/01 +0200, you wrote:
D'OH!!!! Still, my comment stands the MT missiles were being shot down too
easily.
> Derek Fulton wrote:
> D'OH!!!! Still, my comment stands the MT missiles were being shot down
Is this with or without your (IMO somewhat over-complex) lock-on rules
for them?
With some of the fighter-style MT missile versions mentioned on the
list they have a very good chance of hitting the intended target - far
better than SMs. At least in the playtest battles I've fought recently
:-/
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
The '(IYO somewhat over-complex) lock-on rules' only come in to play if
we were using sensor rules. Apart from that a working FCS was required
somewhere in the fleet to attack a target, if you want you can do away with
that as well, make the MT missiles 'fire and forget' (as they were in MT,
.....I hope:)....). But it's all a case of what you what.
> With some of the fighter-style MT missile versions mentioned on the
Me, I have no problem with the ability of the MT missiles to pick out specific
targets, bypassing all those nasty 'banzi jammers'. For me MT missiles are
more discerning and harder to fool than the 'dump them out at this spot and
see who gets hit' SM;)
Can I just ask a stupid question? What's a Banzai Jammer?
> Derek Fulton wrote:
> With some of the fighter-style MT missile versions mentioned on the
> missiles are more discerning and harder to fool than the 'dump them
Same here. But when the MTMs score half again as many hits per Mass of missile
armament as SMs do (which is what we've had in the playtests), and all of them
on the exact targets you want them to instead of some attacking decoys, they
either need to cost more points per Mass than SMs do or the point defences
need to be much more effective against them than against SMs.
At the moment the points cost per Mass is identical and the effect of PDSs not
very different if you look at the same Mass of weapons (eg. 2
MTMs compared to 1 SMR, both Mass 4) :-/
Later,
> David Griffin wrote:
> Can I just ask a stupid question? What's a Banzai Jammer?
In FT, it refers to a small ship flying close to bigger ships in order to
decoy Salvo Missiles away from the real target. It is extremely
annoying to see 4+ SM salvoes hit the same TMF 8 scout instead of
attacking the TMF 220 SDN next to it... (TMF 8 is of course a very
large BJ; purpose-built BJs tend to be TMF 2-4 instead.)
Originally I believe it is USN slang for escort ships (usually frigates) which
use EW to actively entice incoming missiles to hit them
instead of the carrier they're escorting :-/
Regards,
In message <20010404130418.7108.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com>
> David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can I just ask a stupid question? What's a
A small expendable ship, usually as small and cheap as possible (MASS 2
or MASS 3 towed - 1 MASS for drive, rest for hull, or add 1 MASS for
FTL) that sit around near to you big expensive ships and tries to draw
any incoming missile salvos to it (by being closer) - usually deployed
in groups to provide a protective shell.
Interestingly - these are _only_ useful vs. Slavo Missiles - fighters
ignore them, MT missiles ignore them, PBLs fry them en-mass, but you
_could_ use the FTL capable version as an FTL 'suicide bomb' I suppose.
(takes 1 turn to prime -- roll 1d6, 1= nothing, 2-4= 1d6 damage in 6 mu
radius - bj may be dead, 5-6= 1 dp -or 2- in a 6 mu radius, bj dead).
:-)
> David Griffin wrote:
> Can I just ask a stupid question? What's a
On 4-Apr-01 at 19:46, Richard and Emily Bell (rlbell@sympatico.ca)
wrote:
> David Griffin wrote:
I like to make them mass 2 and give the big boys a few to tow in, usually I
give up an armour. In a campaign every point counts.
NB: I usually play FSE derivatives so they hurt me worse than my NAC loving
opponent.
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> Same here. But when the MTMs score half again as many hits per Mass of
My own playtesting indicates much along the same lines. A really good SM
player can get more out of SMs than MT missiles, but