Re-Reenforced hull

Just reading through the midbar skunkworks page (the weapon defence archive),
and came across my proposal for the reenforced hull, with charles taylors
reply.

I said the hull would cost 129, and have dammage tracks of
1st row-16 dp
2nd row-9 dp
3rd row-8 dp
4th row-7 dp

Charles Taylors proposed a hull of 33 with 7 armour points, with dammage
tracks of
armour-7
1st row-9 dp
2nd row-8 dp
3rd row-8 dp
4 th row-8 dp

In taking dammage, my reenforced hull would require 16 dp to the first
threshold vs 16 dp to first threshold with the armoured version. 25 dp to the
second threshold vs 24 dp for the armoured version. 33 dp to the third
threshold vs 32 dp on the armoured hull, and both require 40 dp to
destruction. This does not include what would happen if you fitted armour on
top of the reenforced hull. The only problem with the reenforced hull is
that it would become manditory against KV k-guns (well, I`d always use
it
myself<G>).

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 (ignoring crew
for the moment):
5/5/5/5

I'd be able to support something that gave something more like:
6/6/4/4 or even
7/7/3/3 if it were suitably priced.

In message <00bd01c0979c$13ea7a00$fcb0893e@inty>
> "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Just reading through the midbar skunkworks page (the weapon defence
Actually, IIRC, I was pointing out that you could get a _similar_ result
to your reinforced hull example (except for the different effects v.s
armour penetrating weapons) just by using the FB1 armour rules - and
it'd be cheaper as well :-)