Has anyone tried introducing a house rule limiting the amount of armour a ship
can have?
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. For a ship with 4 hull rows and 13 boxes, that means 3/3/3/4, not
4/3/3/3
ii) the first or innermost layer of hull armour can be no longer than the top
row of hull boxes iii) for Phalons, successive outer layers of armour can be
no longer than the layer beneath
That gives the hull and armour block a tapering upward shape.
It has flaws, of course. Lots of SSDs would change. Virtually every Phalon
ship would need to change, and some of them would see little or no improvement
for the extra cost.
I don't see the current armour system as a problem. If you have too much
armour bleed through weapon cause it to be wasted.
Yet another reason to hate K'rvak.:)
Roger
> On 7/5/06, McCarthy, Tom (xwave) <Tom.McCarthy@xwave.com> wrote:
> If you have too much armour bleed through weapon cause it to be
Having a bit of difficulty sorting this one out. Is it:
"If you have too much armour, bleed-through weapons cause it to be
wasted."? You may need to be specific as I've not played a lot with ships with
armour.
Sorry, seem to be UNUSUALLY dense this morning.Given how much trouble I'm
having with the relatively simple orbital mechanics explanations I've been
offered, that's a scary concept.
The_Beast
If we are going to limit armor? Which does, increase the ship
survival, but also takes up mass which if wasn't armor, could could be hull or
could be
more firepower. Now if U did this Does these ship become more
damgerous.
personally I've taken down NSL ships with NAC ships, beaten the hell out of
FSE ships with NSL. But it comes down to tactics used.
now having a chance for a crit might be nice based on 6 points of damage in a
hit..