Fighter Squadron

I thought they were the best weapon in the game. They have a multiplication of damage for every missile in the salvo. Missiles pretty much require that ships get 15 armour to protect against the average damage of 14 on a 4D roll. Multi warhead missiles cause massive amounts of damage from any missile that gets through. Thrust 15 means the kiting strategy for smaller ships can get overwhelmed more easily with 2 round flight times.

The drawback to missiles is the cost, sending a large salvo costs millions. The payoff is that the return rate is likely to be huge. A ship may spend 35 million and send 1200 Advanced missiles at an enemy. The ship that is destroyed costs many times that.
 
PsiTraveller said:
I thought they were the best weapon in the game.
They do the best damage by far, but they can be countered by PD. If I can land several salvoes in the same round PD is hopelessly outclassed and the enemy loses. Period.
 
AnotherDilbert said:
As the rules stand, this completely destroys the precarious balance between missiles and point defence. We risk that missiles becomes the overwhelmingly best weapon in the game.

This is where the lack of an ability to engage missiles at range with counter missiles is a problem. Anti-missile defense should be as robust as a missile offense. Then it becomes a game of odds, and magazine size. Those with the largest magazines should be able to win a battle (at great expense, but cheaper than losing your ship or your planet).

Missiles are extremely short-ranged in the game. They should have a much farther punch, where missile-armed opponents have an advantage at range, but if you can get into energy range, let alone spinal, you can really knock the stuffing out of someone.
 
Back
Top