A proposal for the next weapon of the week, which shouldn`t take long due to
only agreeing on what was finally discussed, is the af sml (or afhawks). The
proposal goes along the lines of-
Mass=1 Cost=1 Range=12 MU Can only be fired through the arcs of the sml.
Cannot dammage ships. Uses KV scattergun pack rules against fighters (roll
1D6, number rolled=number of fighters destroyed, modified for hvy fighters).
When sml used in af fire, cannot be used in normal sml fire against ships.
Questions? Does it require a firecon to be used, and if it does, would it be 1
firecon per launcher or 1 firecon per fighter group targetted? Would it be
used in the normal pds phase? (I say yes, keeps it simple) Would alowing adfc
function upto it`s 12 mu range be useful?, considering that the af sml is
firing at the fighter group, not defending the other ship?
Probably some other questions, but cannot think of any now.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves...
From - Thu Feb 22 11:21:28 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA12976;
Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:20:48 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id
f1FNIkY72403;
Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:18:46 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-gzg-l)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 15 Feb
2001 15:18:43 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f1FNIgx72382
for gzg-l-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:18:42 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
X-Authentication-Warning: scotch.csua.berkeley.edu: majordom set sender
to owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU using -f
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:VQ//wm87HW48+wCw1t6/DVOdWw55BvoR@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52] (may be forged))
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
f1FNIeA72377
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:18:40
-0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
Received: from cmailg6.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg6.svr.pol.co.uk
[195.92.195.176])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
f1FNIdH95807
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:18:39 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk)
Received: from modem-133.black-necked-stilt.dialup.pol.co.uk
([62.137.180.133] helo=inty) by cmailg6.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0)
id 14TXfP-0004Sj-00
for gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:18:27 +0000
Message-ID: <00f001c097a5$d75761c0$fcb0893e@inty>
From: "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "full thrust" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re;Re-Reenforced hulls
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:20:09 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00001344
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1313
Lines: 34
Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote-
> Just looking at the tracks, this seems excessive.
> 16(!)/9/8/7 is smelling a little like cheddar.
> Lets say we have a ship with 20 Hull. This would normally give
> I'd be able to support something that gave something more like:
> Schoon
The original proposal was that the ships hull would have 1 dp moved from the
second layer, and added to the first layer. It would have 2 dp removed from
the third layer, and added to the first layer, and 3 dp removed from the 4th
layer, and added to the first layer. This was for the un ships, which most
people seemed to say had more hull than other ships (next level of hull dp for
preveous levels mass). My proposal doesn`t actually increase the number of
hull dp, just redistrebutes them, making it harder to get the first threshold
check, but each following hull check requires less dammage per row (although
more if counting from the first row). The psb can be that the reenforcing and
redundancies in the hull are superior to what is normally used, and this can
be shown in the cost (the cost for the hull I did above was 129 pts, vs 80 pts
for a normal 40 dp hull).
BIF
"yorkshire born,yorkshire bred, strong in arms, thick in head"
[quoted original message omitted]