Prev: Re: Armor Next: Re: "Realistic" Systems Ideas

Re: Armor

From: Adam Delafield <A.Delafield@b...>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 06:10:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Armor

Date sent:  4-NOV-1996 11:44:22 

Let's try that again.

>>>>Armor Rules by Brian Bell
>>>>Tons: 1
>>>>Cost: 5

>>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
>armoring--that's the best part of this idea if you ask me. I love the
>of systematically pounding one side of an alien battleship so we can
>tear her guts out!!

>	 Armor facing adds a new component to combat--maneuvering to
>your weak side away from the enemy's batteries and those pesky

Armour facing on a well designed sheet should be workable. (put a row
of boxes on each side of the ship diagram), but 5 is excessive. I don't
think 1 mass for 1 armour is too unbalancing, even though you get 4
extra. It is arc dependant, and reduces your capacity. 1 or 2 armour
provides an escort with reasonable protection, and 6 for a capital
(equivilant of level 2 screens) is significant.

Add in Mark's sandcasters and Arc becomes Very important.

| Adam Delafield, I.T. Officer	      | Bolton Institute,  |
| #include "witty_saying"	      | Eagle Tower,	   |
| E-mail :	      | College Way,	   |
| Phone  : +44 1204 528851 (ext 3163) | Bolton, UK.	   |
| Fax	 : +44 1204 399074	      | BL3 5AE.	   |

Prev: Re: Armor Next: Re: "Realistic" Systems Ideas