MT Missile Questions

Do MT missiles require an active FCS? If so, how many? One per target? One per
missile? Also, are MT missiles simply sucked into the nearest target, like
SLMs? Or are they completely under the launching player's control?

> Do MT missiles require an active FCS? If so, how many? One per

Technically, no.  MTM's specifically carry their own FCS--go back and
read
the description.  It would be reasonable to house-rule that a ship has
to acquire the target before handing off control to the missile, but according
to what's written there the ship does not need its own FCS. I designed a
variant of Schoon's Requin strikeboat that dropped the FCS and whatever the
orginal weapons were, and replaced them with MTM.

Also, are MT missiles simply sucked into the nearest
> target, like SLMs? Or are they completely under the launching

The latter. They haven't been updated to Fleet Book specs
but--IMHO--they
should move like a Fast Fighter, probably with a 3" (vector) or 6" (cinematic)
secondary move, but they can select their targets rather than simply hitting
the closest radar reflection.
 In small numbers they're less efficient than SMR/SML; however, in large
numbers they're more efficient, unless the target has a large PDS suite
and/or good Area Defense.

> At 17:43 2000-08-14 -0400, you wrote:

They are more efficient in greater numbers because each missile must be
targeted by PDS seperatly.

We usually use the house rule that the ship that fires MT Missiles must have 1
working FCS when the MT Missiles are launched. But any number of MT Missiles
may be fired and they may attack different targets.

I ran MT missiles in a PBeM using vector and FB:
- Movement: 36tu in a 60 degree arc forward (i.e. may make upto a 2
point turn at the begining of movement).
- PDS: 5+ to hit MT Missile with PDS.
- Each missile must be targeted seperatly by PDS.
- FCS needed at launch, but may target other units during fire phase
- No secondary movement
- 6tu range.
- 3 turns endurance.
It seemed to work well, but movement is notably different than MT.

---

TU? Is that the same as MU? Actually, having MT missiles (we've been calling
them Drones) move more like fighters would make them a lot more useful. Even
using full vector movement rules, drones that don't in the first or second
turn of endurance are almost never a threat in the third.

We've been playing with the original rules, no FC requirement, separate PDS
for each drone, and a 6 required to hit.

I was curious how people were handling the FC issue because of a design that
recently made an appearance in one of our games (a very SHORT game) -- a
converted heavy freighter loaded with 74!!! drones hiding in an asteroid
field. The NSL battleship squadron that had been sent to punish the rebels
didn't fare so well.

Also, the question had been raised whether MT missiles could act as
stand-alone orbital defenses, perhaps taking their targeting information
from a separate space station.

[quoted original message omitted]

I would imagine that Missiles (MT & Salvo) and Fighters would be the
majority of planetary defense for non-core worlds. Our group usually
limits planetary bombardment and insertion to being launched from ships in
orbit. This means that any invasion should have a good number of Escorts with
ADFC. 30 or so MT missiles can really ruin your day.

-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----

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

> TU? Is that the same as MU?

Tactical unit = Movement unit.

> I was curious how people were handling the FC issue because of a

Yep, that would be a problem.  Any arsenal ship--a big ship that maxes
out
on SMR or MTM--is going to cause problems.  The way you solve that is to
attack it with fighters. Of course, you first need to find out that the
arsenal ship is there, which sounds like a good case for leading with DD's
instead of BB's.

Brian Bell said:
> I ran MT missiles in a PBeM using vector and FB:

I can't see unmanned missiles being less maneuverable than fighters. I could
see them having a 60 degree targeting arc, though.

> From: "Jarrard, Jonathan (J.)" <jjarrard@ford.com>

> that

Our group dealt with MT missiles using extra Bogey decoys and a new system
called bogey ecm. It allowed you to alter the mass rating of your ship to long
range scans until you were ID'd with sensors. Made the capital ships more
difficult to home in on. Also borrowed a Star Fleet Battles system called the
"Expanding Sphere

Generator". It destroys any missile or fighter coming in contact with it.
System charges like the Wavegun and it's use must be plotted ahead of time.

Pete

Yeah, I had wondered at what point Wild Weasels and Bogeys became useful. Has
anyone experimented with expanded ECM rules or C&C squadron rules ala BABYLON
5 WARS FLEET ACTION?

[quoted original message omitted]

This occured in the second Forgeworld scenario, when a converted bulk
freighter unloaded 25 SMR (er) salvoes into the two largest ships (I was
aiming for 5 separate ships, but one got triple whammied). It was certainly a
shock to the forgeworlders, as they had minimal pds active (we'd already lost
most of the fighters) and weren't expecting to be hit by such a dense single
turn salvo.

We still lost the scenario (due to earlier losses & piecemeal attacks), but
reduced their fighting power enough that a third task force could complete the
destruction at a later date.

Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[Pirates] Dame Captain Washalot
[NPJB] Absorbent Sponge Sheesh'Ka'Baab
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta

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

> Yep, that would be a problem. Any arsenal ship--a big ship that maxes