Re: ft-Next weapon of the week? af sml

Let's not get ahead of ourselves...
From - Thu Feb 22 11:21:28 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
	by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA12976;
	Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:20:48 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id
f1FNIkY72403;
	Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:18:46 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from owner-gzg-l)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 15 Feb
2001 15:18:43 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f1FNIgx72382
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:18:42 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
X-Authentication-Warning: scotch.csua.berkeley.edu: majordom set sender
to owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU using -f
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:VQ//wm87HW48+wCw1t6/DVOdWw55BvoR@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52] (may be forged))
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
f1FNIeA72377
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:18:40
-0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
Received: from cmailg6.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg6.svr.pol.co.uk
[195.92.195.176])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
f1FNIdH95807
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:18:39 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk)
Received: from modem-133.black-necked-stilt.dialup.pol.co.uk
([62.137.180.133] helo=inty)
	by cmailg6.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0)
	id 14TXfP-0004Sj-00
	for gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:18:27 +0000
Message-ID: <00f001c097a5$d75761c0$fcb0893e@inty>
From: "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "full thrust" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re;Re-Reenforced hulls
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:20:09 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00001344
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1313
Lines: 34

Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote-

>Just looking at the tracks, this seems excessive.

>16(!)/9/8/7 is smelling a little like cheddar.

>Lets say we have a ship with 20 Hull. This would normally give
>(ignoring crew for the moment):
>5/5/5/5

>I'd be able to support something that gave something more like:
>6/6/4/4 or even
>7/7/3/3 if it were suitably priced.

>Schoon

The original proposal was that the ships hull would have 1 dp moved from
the
second layer, and added to the first layer. It would have 2 dp removed
from
the third layer, and added to the first layer, and 3 dp removed from the
4th
layer, and added to the first layer. This was for the un ships, which
most
people seemed to say had more hull than other ships (next level of hull
dp
for preveous levels mass). My proposal doesn`t actually increase the
number
of hull dp, just redistrebutes them, making it harder to get the first
threshold check, but each following hull check requires less dammage per
row
(although more if counting from the first row). The psb can be that the
reenforcing and redundancies in the hull are superior to what is
normally
used, and this can be shown in the cost (the cost for the hull I did
above
was 129 pts, vs 80 pts for a normal 40 dp hull).

 BIF
"yorkshire born,yorkshire bred,
strong in arms, thick in head"