Re: [FT] Hardened Systems

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> > Från: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com>
> > Till: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> > Ämne: Re: [FT] Hardened Systems
> > Datum:  den 14 januari 1999 05:12

cool! however, i'm not sure it's legal; is 'Från' a valid RFC822
internet
email header :-)?

> With a 25% mass penalty for hardened the forces are almost identically
> balanced
> 
> However the above doesn't apply for engines and fighter bays. The
> fighters aren't much affected by if their bay survives or not and the
> effect of engines on combat outcomes isn't anywhere close to linear
:-/
> 
> Because of this, the +25%/-20% hard/weak systems can't be allowed for
> engines and fighter bays.

yes it should. armouring hangars is no use, so people won't do it. by
all
means warn people, but don't ban it! consider a campaign game where
damage
to ships carries over: armouring a carrier's hangars could be vital.

you say that "the effect of engines on combat outcomes isn't anywhere
close to linear"; do you mean that doubling it is less than or more than
linear? if the former, we should allow armouring the engine, it's just
that nobody sensible will use it.

note that if we go with the separate hangar / launch bay idea that has
been proposed, hangars have a mass of 1 x the mass of contents; if you
let people build weak hangars, they can fit 1 mass of fighters into 0.8
mass of hangar, which is a pretty good trick! in fact, i'm skeptical of
the weak system idea altogether. weakening one part and being dependent
on
the strength of another is usually bad engineering.

Tom