Re: Limits on armour? and Full Steam

["Roger Books" <roger.books@xxxxxxxxx>]

It's rock/scissors paper time.

Put them up against K'rvak or P-torps.

Roger

On 7/6/06, McCarthy, Tom (xwave) < Tom.McCarthy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ***snippage***
> > Personally, I've been tempted to do the following:
> > i) the "odd" hull boxes are tacked on to the final rows,
> > not the first rows.
> ***snippage***
>
> Is it your intention to force threshold checks one hit sooner in most
> cases?

I certainly think it's an acceptable tradeoff.  My list is probably the
most extreme version of change I'd advocate; simply limiting an armour
layer to the length of the 1st or last hull row would work fine, as
would limiting an armour layer to 10% of the hull.

Armour can be a very effective way to keep a ship at full strength for a
very long time.  Some NSL ships require about 3/4 of their sum of hull
and armour boxes destroyed in order to force the second threshold check.
It's a bit excessive, and I think most of those ships, rebuilt under FB2
rules, would play better with a bit more hull and a bit less armour (and
by play better, I mean 'be a foe that opponents feel they have an equal
chance to beat').