RE: Vertical Damage (was: [FT] nasty idea for spinal mounts)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker [SMTP:s_schoon@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:48 AM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	RE: Vertical Damage (was: [FT] nasty idea for spinal
mounts)
> 
> >[Bri] I don't see this as a problem. ALL OTHER weapons do more to
smaller
> >ships (with the possible exception of EMP MT Missile, but even it
faces
> more
> >PDS from large ships, so is less likely to effect large ships than
small
> >ones). One weapon that disadvanages large ships out of numerous
weapons
> that
> >disadvanatges small ships does not seem unbalancing.
> 
> No. I'm going to have to raise the flag on this one. Existing weapons
DO
> NOT do more to smaller ships. They have a greater effect sometimes
because
> smaller ships reach their thresholds more quickly - an inherent
problem
> with their smaller hulls. That is why they are small and cheap,
compared
> to
> larger hulls. There's a reason that SDNs cost 600+ points and frigates
are
> only a tenth of that.
> 
> 
> Schoon
-----End Original Message-----

But that was exactly what you were arguing (quicker threshold checks)
when
you stated that the vertical damage weapons woud do more to larger
ships.
You can't argue one and ignore the other. The actual damage (hull) would
be
the same for large and small ships because the extra damage (beyond the
bottom hull box) is not applied.

---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
---