Re: CPV?

Jared Hilal wrote:

> > The "full" version treats carriers, freighters etc. differently,
>
>So I can assume (or hope) that a TMF 200 bulk cargo freighter will no
>longer have the same value as a FB battlecruiser?

Correct. It still won't be entirely free (you still have to pay for the 
amount of time it'd take the enemy to destroy it), but it will go down 
considerably in cost.

>One other thing (if it's already taken care of then just ig nore this);
>
>on 28 Jan 2004, Laserlight wrote:
>
> >Think I will steal the Hattin outright, (well, I'll drop 2 pds and 2
> >points of armour to bring the hull up to 26,
>
>I think you'll find the armor is more valuable than the extra hull."
>
>If he is correct (and I can see that he is), then shouldn't armor cost
>more points than hull integrity, and they are currently the same?

Armour is more valuable than 4-row hull integrity if the opponents
refrain 
from using armour-penetrating weapons (eg. missiles, P-torps, grasers 
nowadays, K-guns of course, even normal beam batteries if Aaron Teske
rolls 
the dice), but if they do use such weapons it drops back down again.

In the specific Hattin example I'd be more inclined to say that the PDSs

are more valuable than the extra hull - IIRC the Hattin has 1 ADFC + 4
PDS, 
so if you replace 2 PDSs with hull boxes you pretty much gut the ship's 
area-defence capability :-/

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry