Re: [FT] Turrets
From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:45:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [FT] Turrets
At 9:10 PM +0000 9/8/03, david smith wrote:
>That was me. Yes, the turrets would have to be included in the main
>mass of the total ship for working out the MDthrust and FTL and
>sheilds (although you could mount the sheilds in the turrets). It
>was a idea of mine to allow multi arsc firing for single arc weapons
>like k-guns, and allow large ships to be more vulnerable (it makes
>it easier to disable a large ships offensive firepower, while said
>ship is still survivable). It also allows the recreation of a
>dreadnought battle (thinking like when the bismark was sunk, with
>all it`s turrets out of action, gaping holes in the armour, but
>still a floating ship).
Except the difference between a sunken ship and a destroyed spaceship
is that a sunken ship has bouyancy and weight working against each
other. If the weight over comes the bouyancy (water let into the
hull) it sinks. Space craft don't have this as an issue. A section
that is open to space isn't necessarily a problem for the ship as a
whole. The compartment may be screwed (or not) but it won't
critically affect the fighting power of the ship as a whole
(especially if sections are designed to be exposed to vacuum.
--
--
Ryan Gill rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------------
I speak not for CNN, nor they for me.
But I do work there and still like the company.
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | -==----
| O--=- | | /_8[*]°_\
|_/|o|_\_| | _________ | /_[===]_\
/ 00DA61 \ |/---------\| __/ \---
_w/|=_[__]_= \w_ // [_] o[]\\ _oO_\ /_O|_
|: O(4) == O :| _Oo\=======/_O_ |____\ /____|
|---\________/---| [__O_______W__] |x||_\ /_||x|
|s|\ /|s| |s|/BSV 575\|s| |x|-\| |/-|x|
|s|=\______/=|s| |s|=|_____|=|s| |x|--|_____|--|x|
|s| |s| |s| |s| |x| |x|
'60 Daimler Ferret '42 Daimler Dingo '42 Humber MkIV (1/2)
----------------------------------------------------------