Re: Armor
From: JAMES BUTLER <JAMESBUTLER@w...>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 05:38:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Armor
At 08:01 AM 11/4/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Date sent: 4-NOV-1996 08:55:19
>
>>>Armor Rules by Brian Bell
>>>Tons: 1
>>>Cost: 5
>
>>Great idea but it changes the rules regarding fire. Shields and Armor
in
>>Full Thrust prevent damage from enemy fire but they don't add to the
basic
>>damage a ship can take. Also, 5 points of armor protection for 1 mass
is
>>extremely generous. Maybe invert the mass/cost ratio (mass determines
>>decisions in ship construction never cost). Then try to determine
exactly
>>how much armor is equivalent to level-1 shields, instead of giving the
ships
>>more "hit points."
>
>>Joe
>
>I like the idea of extra hits, but agree that 5 points is generous. It
>would be quite acceptable IMHO to allow a ship to use unused capacity
>for armour on a 1 for 1 basis, improving the damage capacity at the
>expense of system capacity. This would not have 'facing'.
>| Adam Delafield, I.T. Officer | Bolton Institute, |
5 points is probably too much but I would hate to lose facing
with
armoring--that's the best part of this idea if you ask me. I love the
idea
of systematically pounding one side of an alien battleship so we can
finally
tear her guts out!!
Armor facing adds a new component to combat--maneuvering to keep
your weak side away from the enemy's batteries and those pesky fighters!
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
___
|[|]|
|[|]|
/|[|]|\ _______ __ // //
_ _ /==|[|]|==\(_______)/ \__[__]__[__]__MMMMMMMMMM\
[_|_|\%%===[|]====(_______)| |===================HHHHHH\
[_|_| %%===[|]====(_______)| |=X=X=X==X=X=X======HHHHHHH]
[_|_| %%==========(_______)\__/ }C=K@ WWWWWWWWWW/
[_|_|/
}C=K@
|_____||__________||_________||____________||___________|
Main Bridge/ Fuel/ Weapons/ Scanners/
Drive Quarters Jump Drive Ship's Boats Spinal Mount
Battlecruiser INTREPID, CORMORANT-class
Captain James L. Butler III, Commanding
JAMESBUTLER@worldnet.att.net