Re: [FT] Hardened Systems

>Schoon,
>     (It must be my day to disagree, sorry.)

When will you guys learn that I have no ego. Disagree with me all you
want ;-)

>     A ship that uses armored systems does not "increase the
>effectiveness" of other systems.   The armored ship sacrafices
>offensive power to increase the survivability of the remaining
>offensive systems and movement ability to withdraw from a situation
>that has become untenable.   An armored ship is a design concept more
>suited to a campaign enviroment than a 'one shot' game.

Maybe we're not seeing this the same way. I see a hardened FC as far
more
effective than a hardened Beam battery, even thought it can't damage the
enemy. That FC directs the fire of potentially many Beam batteries.

>     In any case,  I feel the 50% increase in mass for armoring
>the system is far to high as the system is not a weapon and is not
>capable of inflicting damage on the enemy.

Would you harden one of the proposed fighter launch tubes (especially if
you had four fighter groups and only one tube)? Tubes don't inflict
direct
damage either.

Schoon