GZG List archives -- July 2006
Re: Limits on armour? and Full Steam
One armor idea I floated a while back is to make armor cheaper (like
2 per mass), but have all damage above about 3 points from a single
source (one attacking ship, one fighter group, one missile salvo, one
plasma bolt etc) penetrate to the hull. This simulates directional
coverage of armor (in that it can be locally overwhelmed) without
using armor facings. This makes it more possible that heavily armored
ships like the NSL might actually get destroyed before losing all
their armor, which has a certain logic to it.
K-guns still penetrate after only 1 point.
On Jul 6, 2006, at 3:51 PM, John K Lerchey wrote:
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
---
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
-- H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.
Main Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Archive Index
roger@nospam.firedrake.org
Generated: Tue Aug 01 01:07:46 GMT 2006