Re: [FT] Hardened Systems: Bah, Humbug. Directional armor: Cool

>2 Quatloos:
>
>Hardened systems are IMHO below the resolution of FT.

Possibly - depends on how they are handled

>Take the current proposal: +50% mass and cost, round up.
>
>Any 1 mass system is not worth hardening:
>Example:
>
>Firecon - Mass: 1, Cost: 3
>Hardened Firecon: Mass: 2, Cost 5

Actually I thought it would be Mass 2, cost 6 (keep cost/mass)

>I would pay the extra point and have a whole additional firecon.

Well, as given above, sure.  Actually, though, when I first read the
proposal and its reference to Core systems, what I envisioned was not
really individually hardened systems, but rather, identify system(s) to
be
hardened, draw a box around the group.	Take the mass of the group and
set
the mass for the 'hardening' at 50% of the total.  This could muck up
the
cost of the hardening, what with mixed-cost systems inside, but I'm sure
something can be resolved (like making it 3/mass for the hardening)

What this means is that I take 2 firecons and 'Harden' them together and
it
takes Mass 3, Cost 9 -just like 3 firecons.  however, they test at 1
threshold higher.  While in most cases, buying additional systems may be
the better choice, there are some on the list who have complained about
their poor luck in losing all their Firecons in a single go - at it
seems
that some times this is irregardless of how many they have. So then it
becomes a matter of priorities and choice.

>Any Mass 3-4 system is better served by buying other systems or armor.
>My logic here is that 2 armor protects _all_ systems from one more good
>beam hit.
>Another example:
>Rather than pay 2 mass and 6 points  for a hardened Class 3 beam, I'd
>rather just buy a whole Class 2 beam, or 2 points of armor. for the
same
>or less cost.

True, but those 2 points protect what I consider a valued system for an
entire damage row - this may be important

>A mass 5+ system is better served by buying armor or screens. Absorb 3
>points of damage or reduce incoming beams by
>~16%, your choice.

Not totally disagreeing with you here, just pointing out that it is a
matter of priority and choice. There are reasons that individualized
protection could be more important to someone, just not to you it seems.

Jared Noble