OBT Forum

Okay, here's a question:  if a Capital Missile (Barracuda, White Shark, or Killer Whale) can engage manned fighters without penalty (and the Barracuda launcher gets a -2 bonus), shouldn't they also be able to engage capital missiles in a missile defense role?  Look at the world today . . . we use missiles to shot down missiles ALL THE BLOODY TIME.  From Iron Dome defending against short-range rockets, to Standard-type SAMs used on US Naval Ships, missiles have been engaging and shooting down other missiles for decades. 

After all, a single Barracuda masses 30 tons, a White Shark 40 tons, and a Killer Whale 50 tons . . . putting them in the same size range as manned ASF.  So why aren't there any rules for using Capital Missile Launchers to shoot down incoming Capital Missiles?  On the pro side, this would force player's to choose between using these systems in the anti-ship role (offensively), anti-fghter role (offensively), or anti-missile role (defensively), while giving all of those Star League designs so lacking in point-defense SOME ability to shoot down incoming nukes.

I am just wondering why the game doesn't allow it?  And would it be better if it did?

MA

Well, I can see a few arguments against it:

1.  Capital missiles are capable of tremendous accelerations, at least 25-g (as they can cover 50 hexes in a single turn).  And that is true . . . except, there is no penaty for engaging aerospace fighters that build up to a velocity of 50.  In the rules, as far as I can tell, there are no penalties based on how fast your target is moving . . . only the range to target, ECM (if any), and possible target/shooter aspect.  In the last case, any incoming missile will be approaching head-on, so that is a wash.  And missiles don't carry ECM.  So the speed aspect (well, the acceleration) should not be a factor.

2.  A player might 'game' the system by waiting to see if his opponent launches missiles or not before using his own missiles in the offensive role.  And that is a very legitimate argument.  Which is why I believe that one should declare missile launchers offensive or defensive at the start of the game turn . . . reserving a missile launcher for the anti-missile role means it will not get used if someone doesn't shoot a capital or sub-capital missile at that target.  Which is a good thing; players should have to make hard choices . . . do I fire all three White Sharks against that cruiser hoping for a crit, or do I keep one or two in reserve in case he is carrying nukes?

3.  Would a missile hit be an auto-kill against another missile or what?  I would go with the same rules as AMS . . . if you do as much damage as the incoming warhead, you kill it.  Otherwise, you have a chance to kill it.

4.  What about player's spamming multiple missiles at a single incoming nuke?  Here is where that acceleration comes into play.  I would not allow such . . . each incoming missile (not a salvo, but each seperate individual missile) may be targeted ONCE by any defensive Capital missile launcher.  If you hit, then you either destroy or damage it (see #3 above), if you miss, there isn't time for a second shot.

5.  What range would you use to engage it?  Extreme is 50, but their missiles are just as fast as your.  So, they should probably merge at about sixteen hexes (the defender needs to identify and target the incoming).  So medium range for the engagement.

EDIT:  6.  What about one missile ship covering its flotilla?  I would allow it, but only for ships within 6 hexes of the missile unit.  Further away, and the targeting systems just cannot identify the threats fast enough to intercept short of the vessel being defended.

Just some thoughts on how this might work.

MA