Prev: RE: Four years without thrust Next: Re: FC and stealth was: Four years without thrust

Re: FC and stealth was: Four years without thrust

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 06:42:19 +0200
Subject: Re: FC and stealth was: Four years without thrust

KHR wrote:

> >A substantial problem with the FC-as-anti-ECM mechanic is that it
makes
> >multiple FCs vastly more valuable than they are now.
>
>Should depend on the mechanism in question, wouldn't it ?
>
>After all, if you have to concentrate several firecontrols on one
target
>and/or for one weapon, you can't use them for something else.

If you have to concentrate several fire controls on one target and/or
for 
one weapon, *ships with only a single operational fire control can't
fire 
at all*."

Which, as Roger says, means that the mechanic makes multiple FCSs vastly

more valuable than they are now.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

Prev: RE: Four years without thrust Next: Re: FC and stealth was: Four years without thrust