Re: Limits on armour? and Full Steam

It's rock/scissors paper time.

Put them up against K'rvak or P-torps.

Roger

On 7/6/06, McCarthy, Tom (xwave) <Tom.McCarthy@xwave.com> wrote:
>
> > ***snippage***
> > > Personally, I've been tempted to do the following:
> > > i) the "odd" hull boxes are tacked on to the final rows,
> > > not the first rows.
> > ***snippage***
> >
> > Is it your intention to force threshold checks one hit sooner in
most
> > cases?
>
> I certainly think it's an acceptable tradeoff.  My list is probably
the
> most extreme version of change I'd advocate; simply limiting an armour
> layer to the length of the 1st or last hull row would work fine, as
> would limiting an armour layer to 10% of the hull.
>
> Armour can be a very effective way to keep a ship at full strength for
a
> very long time.  Some NSL ships require about 3/4 of their sum of hull
> and armour boxes destroyed in order to force the second threshold
check.
> It's a bit excessive, and I think most of those ships, rebuilt under
FB2
> rules, would play better with a bit more hull and a bit less armour
(and
> by play better, I mean 'be a foe that opponents feel they have an
equal
> chance to beat').
>
>