Re: Re-Reenforced hull

In message <00bd01c0979c$13ea7a00$fcb0893e@inty>
	  "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Just reading through the midbar skunkworks page (the weapon defence
> archive), and came across my proposal for the reenforced hull, with
charles
> taylors reply.
> 
> I said the hull would cost 129, and have dammage tracks of
> 1st row-16 dp
> 2nd row-9 dp
> 3rd row-8 dp
> 4th row-7 dp
> 
> Charles Taylors proposed a hull of 33 with 7 armour points, with
dammage
err.. no 's'----^ :-)
> tracks of
> armour-7
> 1st row-9 dp
> 2nd row-8 dp
> 3rd row-8 dp
> 4 th row-8 dp
> 
> In taking dammage, my reenforced hull would require 16 dp to the first
> threshold vs 16 dp to first threshold with the armoured version. 25 dp
to
> the second threshold vs 24 dp for the armoured version. 33 dp to the
third
> threshold vs 32 dp on the armoured hull, and both require 40 dp to
> destruction. This does not include what would happen if you fitted
armour on
> top of the reenforced hull. The only problem with the reenforced hull
is
> that it would become manditory against KV k-guns (well, I`d always use
it
> myself<G>).
> 
>  BIF
> "yorkshire born,yorkshire bred,
> strong in arms, thick in head"
> 
> PS-Noam, I tried acessing the NI homepage today, and got a reply
saying "you
> do not have permission to access /g/z/g/gzg_1/ni/NIhome.htm on this
server".
> This was from the full thrust ring list page? Anybody know why?
>
Actually, IIRC, I was pointing out that you could get a _similar_ result
to your reinforced hull example (except for the different effects v.s
armour penetrating weapons) just by using the FB1 armour rules - and
it'd be cheaper as well :-)