Minefields: WAS RE: [OFFICIAL] Missile Ideas

Mikko Kurki-Suonio Sez:
> Having yammered this much about missiles, how about a slight change of
From
> the point/mass side of things, two mines equal one missile. Yet they

Yep, they're crap.

> Heck, dumping stationary missiles would probably much more of a

That's pretty much the conclusion I've come to. BTW no one has ever used a
minelayer in any of the games I've played in.

> How to make mines more usable? Some ideas:

Yeah, 3 mines is stingy, but I'm wondering how much utility a 'game time'
minefield should have. Mining seems to be a scenario level, or campaign level
activity.

> 2) More damage for mines. 1d6/no shields would bring them in line with

See Robin Paul's analysis of the damage potential of mines for this one. I
agree with Robin, mines are worse than useless. Unless you want mines
to represent the last-ditch weapons of the poor, third-world (planet ?
space? system?) nations in your game or campaign. I think 1d6, ignoring
shields is apropos, or maybe 1d6, with a 1 in 6 chance of premature detonation
and no effect, mines being rather haphazard.

> 3) Permanent minefields. Minefields stay and damage all comers until

Great idea, the perfect use of mining. Anti-mine drone fighters and
missiles, I like it already.

> Strategically speaking, it's currently impossible to lay anything like

And to do so during most FT games is tantamount to suicide.

Assume you want to protect one quadrant (90deg) of a space station, make
> anyone coming within bombardment range (36") risk 5 pts of damage. That

I use Mass 1, 3 points per three mine reload for the mines as given in
the rules. So call it 1 point per mine and 1/3 of a mass point. So would
40 or so points be more worthwhile for your Space Station's defenses?

Gene
> [quoted text omitted]