I've been looking a bit at armour and in ship design it looks like armour is a
wonderful thing.
Average hull mass 90 ship:
First threshold @ 7 hits
Second threshold @ 14 hits Third threshold @ 21 hits Death @ 27 hits
Weak hull mass 90, with 9 armour:
First threshold @ 14 hits (same as second on AVE hull) Second threshold@ 19
hits
Third threshold@ 23 hits
Death @ 27 hits
I could have gone for a fragile hull, however, you need to cover those
penetrating shots with hull otherwise your armour is pointless.
I'm also rapidly reaching the viewpoint that you should purchase
hull just like any other system. This does away with min-maxers.
It has been rather hard for me to avoid the breaks since I
discovered that an (10*X)+1 hull is almost universally better
than a (10*X) or (10*X)+2 hull because of rounding. If I bought
hull like other systems this affect would go away. Also, if armour was 1.5
mass for each this would fix the "other" discovery of mine.
> Roger Books wrote:
> I've been looking a bit at armour and in ship design it
But not all weapons have to go through the armour before starting to damage
the hull. Meet a ship with the wrong (or right, depending upon which end of
the barrel you are) weapon mix and your threshold points become:
First @ 5 Second @ 10 Third @ 14 Death @ 18
which doesn't look half as appealing.
> On 21-Jul-99 at 11:13, Tony Francis (tony@glassghost.com) wrote:
Which weapons are you talking about? If they are using needle beams and they
hit enough to be significant thresholds are not
my problem. Beams get through armour on a re-roll, but they
are still doing most of their damage to the armour. Plasma
torps do 1/2 damage to armour and 1/2 to hull, I'm still better
shape there (10 hits to get to the first threshold, 19 for second). Am I
missing an important weapon?
Wave Gun and Nova Cannon. But these are rarely used.
The real question is the cost/mass/effectiveness ratio vs. screens
and vs. the firepower that could be added for the cost/mass.
I don't have the math to compute the figures. But my impression is that
screens are more effective against beam weapons than armor, but less (or not)
effective against other weapons.
I don't have a feel for the armor vs. added firepower.
-----
Brian Bell
http://fly.to/ftsr/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Roger Books wrote:
> I've been looking a bit at armour and in ship design it
It is, as long as your enemy doesn't like pulse torps or EMP missiles (or
happens to be Aaron Teske, so he kills your ship after destroying 2
pts of armour ;-) ). The only time it is not worthwhile to drop from
one hull category and no armour to the next weaker and 10% armour is if you
already have a Weak hull and thus would be dropping to Fragile...
How to fix it? Simple. Drop the cost of the hull boxes to 1*Mass, but let the
armour remain at 2*Mass. The snag with this is of course that the FB1 ship
costs all go out the window, but it balances the various
armour/screen options *much* better than the current costs.
Best wishes,
> Brian Bell wrote:
[On armour-ignoring weapons]
> Wave Gun and Nova Cannon.
Um... they don't ignore FB armour. They ignore screens, and you could argue
that they penetrate armour in the same fashion as pulse torps and SMs even
though this isn't stated anywhere, but even then you'd need more armour boxes
than you have hull boxes in order to kill the ship before it runs out of
armour.
> I don't have the math to compute the figures. But my impression
Generally speaking screens are better than armour aboard big ships (ie, with
many DCPs) with Average or better hulls and low thrust ratings, as
long as the enemy doesn't use any screen-skipping weapons. You don't
need very many screen-skppers before the armour is better for all
hulls, though.
> I don't have a feel for the armor vs. added firepower.
Adding armour is usually better, as long as don't overdo it. Having 20%
of the Mass as armour and a Super-strong hull won't leave too much
space for weapons, like :-/
Regards,
May I inquire where it states that Wave Guns/Nova Cannons do not ignore
FB armor? MT states that they ignore screens and armor. I understood this to
not be changed in FB.
-----
Brian Bell
brian_bell@dscc.dla.mil or brian_bell@usiva.com
Y2K Project
Universal Systems Inc. for DSCC-BEE
614.692.4794 Voice - 614.693.1503 Fax - 850-4794 DSN
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> Oerjan Ohlson
> "Bell, Brian K" wrote:
It isn't stated anywhere in the rules. It is implied by the fact that the
armor in MT has the same effect as a shield, and does not serve to directly
absorb damage like additional hull the way it does in the FB. THe situation is
however, open to individual interpretation.
Chris
> Brian K Bell wrote:
> May I inquire where it states that Wave Guns/Nova Cannons do not
It only says that about the WG, not about the NC... you're drawing an
conclusion about the NC here; while logical, it's not entirely supported by
the rules <g>
> I understood this to not be changed in FB.
Armour itself has changed from MT to FB. MT Kra'Vak armour counts as screens,
but FB armour acts more or less like hull boxes. Given that MT
armour is also ignored by Pulse Torps and sub-packs while FB armour is
not (or at least not completely), my conclusion is that FB armour also
protects against the WG and NC. Just like yours, it isn't entirely supported
by the rules <g>
Regards,