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

On 13 Jan 99, at 12:25, Izenberg, Noam wrote:

> 2 Quatloos:
> 
> Hardened systems are IMHO below the resolution of FT.
> 
> 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
> 
> I would pay the extra point and have a whole additional firecon.

Fine, so do that :) However, two firecons could both fail the first 
threshold check, leaving you with none, while a single hardened 
one /can't/ fail the first check. Perhaps making it worth considering.

> 
> 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.

Except, again, you can't lose this hardened beam at all on the first 
threshold check. Perhaps worth it.

> 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.
> 
> 2 more Quatloos:
> 
> I like directional armor. I was thinking of a system like this:
> 3 Directional Armor  cost 1 Mass and 3 points.
> Directional armor covers 1 arc of a ship, and can be placed in any
> number in any arc.
> 
> Noam
>	
> 
>   
> 
> 
> Noam R. Izenberg		  noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu
> 
> 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Calamities are of two kinds: misfortunes to ourselves, and good fortune
to others. 
     Ambrose Bierce
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~