RE: [FT] K'V Armour Vs. Weapons

>Its fundamental in that MT said it was basic to KV ship design.
>You are proposing to change that premise. I don't know how popular
>that level of change is. From existing feedback on this thread
>people are reactionary and want the KV as close to MT as possible.
>I suppose I do to.

I agree that we need to keep the new rules as close to the spirit of MT
as
possible, while admiting that they were also very flawed in a balance
perspective (point wise).

"This hull armour provides the larger ships with significant protection
against..."

>Having a MASS 30 destroyer with equivalent of Level 1 Screens
>were what made the KV so feared. You just pulled some of their
>teeth.

Not all MT designs had armoured hulls. In particular, the Di'Tok Class
Destroyer did not. The Vo'Bok Class Hunter was the "lightest" ship to
have
armour. So what we are proposing is not that unusual.

Schoon