Should the current AMS/ Point Defense affect Capital Missiles?

[ATN082268]

  Should the current AMS/ Point Defense affect Capital Missiles? Add comments in this thread.

[Stormfury]

They do.

Is this a question of whether that should change, or what?

Personally, I am all in favour of AMS working against capital missiles, for one very simple reason: nukes.

[ATN082268]

They do.

Is this a question of whether that should change, or what?

Personally, I am all in favour of AMS working against capital missiles, for one very simple reason: nukes.

  This is a poll (although technically it contains a question) and not simply a question based on the current AMS/ Point Defense rules. What should be changed can be included in this thread. Besides, Capital Missiles are used much more frequently compared to Nuclear Weapons. And if the Nuclear Weapon rules are broken, then those can be changed too :)

-Andrew

[wundergoat]

AMS systems are fine as they are in defending against capital missiles.  You can defeat most AMS systems with bundled missile fire, while missiles themselves are quite efficient with AA and critseeking potential not seen in the other capital weapons.

The only issue I have with AMS is the infinite number of attacks it can defend against per turn.  Sure, its limited by heat and ammo and FCS, but it is still there to potentially abuse.  Also, as written you can have multiple single AMS in a ships arc and just choose the exact amount needed to stop a missile volley and is very resilient versus lucky crits and functional crit packing.  This is solved easily enough by stating that only one AMS battery per arc can engage a given missile attack.

[cray]

Yes, definitely. AMSs are the great equalizers against nuclear weapons.

[Ratwedge]

I like how it is at the moment. 

[HavocTheWarDog]

AMS = nuke defense...an absolute must...its the only real defense against herb beas LOL

[Fallen_Raven]

AMS = nuke defense...an absolute must...its the only real defense against herb beas LOL

Oh, you don't wanna do that. It'll only make him angry.  ;D

[Khymerion]

Maybe move AMS towards something akin to like how Starfire handles mass AMS fire verse missile swarms...

Then again, even with capital C3, it still doesn't compare to the missile bombardments of that other game... in addition, short of custom warships... most of the canon warships don't have massively layered AMS systems nor do they mount capital missiles that have a throw weight in terms of missiles fired per turn and damage dealt by the warheads to really call for a mass revamp of the current AMS rules.

Now, if battletech started to produce warships that mounted canonical warships that had throw weights of 6 to 8 Killer Whales per turn and a way to datalink 4 to 6 ships together to pour 36 to 48 missiles a squadron a turn into a single ship, perhaps AMS would need revamping.  Then again, unlike the other game, there isn't the preponderance of external ordinance for both capital ships and fighters to warrant such a change in AMS rules.  That other game would have fighters capable of hauling 4 to 6 anti-capital ship missiles (akin to the anti-ship missiles from TacOps)... but at best, the best missile truck in B-Tech is a 3 on a 90 ton whale of a fighter.   The idea of using fighters as a stand off weapon for capital ship/drop ship missile strikes isn't there nor backed up by the rules enough to try.

Till then, I am satisfied with the current AMS rules.

[verybad]

It works as is. Perfect? No, but what is. It can be abused by custom designs, but so can machine guns... The potnetial for abuse in custom designs really isn't a big deal.