[FT] SM Magazines

8 posts ยท Aug 5 1999 to Aug 6 1999

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:10:34 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: [FT] SM Magazines

One Magazine or several?

I'm designing an FSE Fleet Carrier, same mass as the current one. 11 Fighter
squadrons and 3 SML's. It is going to have magazine capacity for 9 ER SMs, I
want to leave people the difficult choice, use point defenses on fighters or
on salvo missiles, hopefully extending the life of my fighters.

The problem I'm running into is do I do one mass 27 magazine, or 3 mass 9's.
I'm leaning toward the 9's for damage survivability, I don't like the idea of
one bad threshold check toasting all my SMs, on the other hand if a launcher
goes I can't feed its SMs to another launcher.

What do the other SM users recommend?

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:44:23 -0400

Subject: RE: [FT] SM Magazines

I would go with 3 magazines. This will limit you to 3 salvos per launcher, but
SRM seem to be used early anyway. Every time that I have held them for later,
I have either lost them or the ship before I could use them.

Another alternative is to have a magazine of 6 that feeds 2 of the SRMs and
then a second magazine of 3 that feeds only the 3rd SRM. This would give you
the greatest flexibility.

-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----

> -----Original Message-----

From: ScottSaylo@a...

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:47:11 EDT

Subject: Re: [FT] SM Magazines

Two three missiles per launcher seems reasonable since the US has one that has
FOUR tubes; however, "SM Magazine" is a truly UNFORTUNATE title. Next
thing we'll be getting adult-oriented offers under "SM" headings. whips
and chains were never a big turn on for me <g>

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 18:20:05 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] SM Magazines

Roger said:
> One Magazine or several?

You forgot the other option which is zero magazines (all racks). I buy all
SMRs because the plan is to have a lot of missiles arrive all at once and
overwhelm his PDS. The cost savings of a magazine isn't worth spreading out my
salvo over time, IMHO.

Now, you might want to have successive waves so your first strike can kill the
banzai jammers without committing massive overkill. It is frustrating to land
14 missiles on a frigate with 10 hull, particularly when there's a heavy
cruiser going neglected. However, rather than use magazines and launchers to
generate successive waves, I chose to have one ship launch the first wave,
then another ship come within range next turn and launch the second. hat way,
if you lose ship #1, you haven't lost the firepower because it has launched
already.

From: Jon Davis <davisje@n...>

Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 18:52:30 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] SM Magazines

It depends on the amount of damage you have in the first row before a
threshold check and how quickly an enemy will push you past that damage
amount.

Your ship is a Mass 280 ship. Have you reduced the hull strength from Average
to Weak? Or have you reduced the thrust from 4 to 2? You need to do one or the
other in order to accommodate the mass requirements of the fighter bays and
missile salvo systems.

Jon

> Roger Books wrote:

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:54:50 -0700

Subject: Re: [FT] SM Magazines

Game Store Trivia

Once upon a time Games of Berkeley moved from Addison to a much better
location on Shattuck [1]. The previous tenants were an adult book, video and
novelty shop. For years we got the darndest catalogs in the mail... It kinda
says something about Berkeley in the mid eighties when a game store spruces up
downtown.

[1] Its on Center now, across from the BART station, if it matters...

> At 11:47 AM -0400 8/5/99, ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
Next
> thing we'll be getting adult-oriented offers under "SM" headings. whips

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:21:44 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: [FT] SM Magazines

> On 5-Aug-99 at 18:30, Laserlight (laserlight@cwix.com) wrote:

I've considered this and in normal situations I agree, SMR's are much more
affective than the mass difference indicates. However, in the carrier
situation the racks aren't there so much to do damage as to force my opponent
to use point defenses on them rather than on the fighters. Given that I am
using ER salvo missiles and want as much support as possible a launcher makes
much more sense. With carriers I tend to send the fighters to the same place
the SM's are going if I can. If I can't the fighters take their lumps.

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:24:33 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: [FT] SM Magazines

> On 5-Aug-99 at 18:52, Jon Davis (davis@albany.net) wrote:

Fragile, that's why ER SML's. Did add 7 armour though. I'm going with modern
US Navy theory. Once the fighters are off the carrier has done its job. If I
can keep it alive, and at least one of the fighter groups will be interceptors
and it will have escorts, that is just a bonus.