Re: RE: Limits on armour? and Full Steam

[John K Lerchey <lerchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have to agree with Indy.  Armor and stronger hulls are why those ships 
are hard to kill, and that's the point.  Such ships should either carry 
fewer weapons overall, or be really expensive.  The last three games of FT 
I've played I ran NSL ships (and only by choice in one of them!).  I broke 
even at best in all three.  Of course, scenario design factored in, but 
the lack of thrust and manueverability of the NSL ships is a huge offset 
to having heavy armor.  Yeah, the NSL ships die slower, but they don't get 
to do much to choose when/where/how to engage. :)

If armor is to get a revamp, I'd think more about a complete overhaul than 
limiting the max based on hull row length.

J

John K. Lerchey
Assistant Director for Incident Response
Information Security Office
Carnegie Mellon University

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Indy wrote:

> On 7/6/06, McCarthy, Tom (xwave) <Tom.McCarthy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > What
> > > bugs me more is going up against a Komorov or something similar, where
> > you
> > > feel there's no point in shooting at it because it'll take five turns
> > just
> > > to get to the first threshold, and until then he's utterly safe from
> > > losing any systems.
> >
> > In some ways, that what it feels like to me against the Markgraf, even.
> > Or the Ark Royal.  Average hulls and more than 10% in armour is brutal
> > to chew through, and even weak hulls seem incredibly durable with 2
> > screens and 5% armour.
>
>
> Well....isn't that part of the point of having those passive defenses on the
> ship?
>
> You just need to hit it with heavier damaging weapons (larger the ship,
> larger the weapon to take it down). Of course then you hit the flip side
> with weapon vaporizing all the little ships long before little ships can get
> into engagement range.
>
> Mk