[FT] Forts (battle report using same)

4 posts ยท Oct 8 2001 to Oct 9 2001

From: Robertson, Brendan <Brendan.Robertson@d...>

Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:15:46 +1000

Subject: RE: [FT] Forts (battle report using same)

On Sunday, October 07, 2001 10:02 PM, Bif Smith
> [SMTP:bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk] wrote:
The fort
> had a mass of 3000, with 800 pts of armour, 300 hull DP`s, 30
Total cost
> of the fort was 7000 pts. Also, to represent the effects of the
That's one helluva fortress. Although I would question having it within weapon
range of the jump point.

> fighter squadrens, which managed to kill another 4 ships. This left
The
> corvettes then salvoed their full load of missiles, and targeted them
That is really, really bad, considering average damage is 7.0 per MT missile
(you were using 2d6 damage per missile weren't you?) so should have done ~2000
points of damage instead of the ~912 it did.

I would personally count that battle as an ESU partial victory, as the base is
going to spend years getting the damage repaired, which will tie more mobile
defences to the system (which have to be drawn from elsewhere). In the same
amount of time, the ESU will have replaced all their losses at
least three-fold and can try again later (they only have to succeed
once, after all).

Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM

From: Bif Smith <bif@b...>

Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:51:07 +0100

Subject: Re: [FT] Forts (battle report using same)

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 20:55:37 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Forts (battle report using same)

Bif said:

> Yes, we used 2D6 dammage per missile, and I even tried rolling 50

From: Michael Llaneza <maserati@e...>

Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:04:36 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: [FT] Forts (battle report using same)

3.6 average on 2d6 over 50 trials? Buy a lottery ticket, and don't wave a
sandwedge opver your head during a thunderstorm, those are long odds indeed.

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Laserlight wrote:

> Bif said: