Re: Vehicle Design Philosophy

>I'm not sure this would really work in DS II. Remember, in DS II
there's no
>such thing as "Hull" as opposed to armor. There's a size class, and
there's
>armor.  Basically, all you're doing is making KV Armor 1 level stronger
- ie
>class 4 armor would act as class 5, etc. I'm guessing (and only
guessing
>since I don't play FT) that if the KV don't rely on armor, they must
rely on
>some sort of shielding on their ships.

No, just lots of hull integrity. Since they use penetrator weapons
themselves, this is primarily what they build to defend against, so they
make their hulls INTERNALLY strong (lots of bulkheads etc) to limit the
damage that penetrators do rather than armour-up the outside. They work
on
the basis that you can't put enough armour on to stop the big k-guns
from
penetrating, so you have to protect the critical areas within the hull
instead by surrounding them with lots of non-critical areas to soak up
the
damage....

Jon (GZG)
>
>Now, "Lot's of hull, not  a lot of armor" translates in DS II to
>underarmored.	So I'm going to assume 1 of 3 things: Either: 1) the KV
have
>developed some sort of shields for their ground vehicles using a
technology
>unknown to humans or 2) The KV have a different design philosophy for
ground
>vehicles than for spacecraft or 3) KV tanks may be killing machines but
>they're also quite killable, IF you can hit them.... Let's look at our
>options:
>
>Option 1:  Shields: We'll just have to wait and see how those will
change
>the face of ground warfare in	the Tuffleyverse.
>
>Option 2: The KV ground commanders rely a lot more heavily on armor
than do
>the naval CO's. This would explain highly armored KV tanks.
>
>Option 3: I'm wrong on both counts. The KV DON'T rely on heavy armor,
and
>DON'T have ground-based shield devices. Instead, the KV philosophy
would be
>(comparatively) lightly armored vehicles with superior ECM and GOBS of
>stealth. They're a B***h to hit, but if you do, you have a good chance
of
>killing them.
>
>Brian B
>
>
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Matthew Seidl <seidl@vex.cs.colorado.edu>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>Subject: Re: Vehicle Design Philosophy
>Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 16:12:26 -0600
>
>
>Hmmmm.  A post-FB2 idea.  Since FB2 K'V use strong hulls and not that
>much armor now, how about this for their DS2 tanks.
>
>(I don't have my rules in front of me, so I'm talking off the cuff
>here).  How about giving the K'V tanks an additional damaged level?
>If they take damage that would destroy a regular tank, give them a
>damage marker that reduces their movement by 25-33%, and their main
>weapon by one class.  A second damage marker would destroy them.  Adds
>record keeping (or more counters.  Blah) But better simulates the way
>their space ships work.
>
>-=- Matthew L. Seidl		email: seidl@cs.colorado.edu		
   =-=
>=-= Graduate Student			Project . . . What Project?	
   -=-
>-=- http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/Home.html	  -Morrow Quotes
>=-=
>=-= http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/lawsuit
>-=-
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com