Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Some specific Nubian design questions
Re: Some specific Nubian design questions Tue, 19 May 2009 21:33 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Eagle of Fire wrote on Tue, 19 May 2009 19:08

Quote:

Also, "Armor = ultra heavy" seems like an old idea. Why does armor weigh more than a shield generator? I bet that the 2 would weigh similar amounts... Wink

I sure hope you are kidding.


No, not really. Show me on paper how a device designed to absorb massive amounts of energy, and dissipate it too, is lighter than armor. By our current physics we can't even build a "containment field" for nuclear fusion no matter how heavy or large. However, we can make pretty damn good armor to slap on a tank...

Quote:

I understand that the STARS! tech files are misleading with their image of a shield representing the armor items for ships... But we're talking about adding, sheet by sheet, additionnal layers which cover the whole ship to provide protection.

All in a nice tidy package that is getting lighter by the year. And we don't even have room temperature superconductors yet! Imagine!

Quote:

Versus small force shield generating devices which can easily be encased inside the ship itself.

Talk about pure scifi!

Quote:

I have no idea how armor could ever be the same weight, unless we someday manage to find some kind of alloy which would, by default, be stronger than the armor layers you could possibly plan to sport on the ship...

Modern armor is layered with different materials with different properties. You are also assuming that Armor is some passive componet like steel. What about Active Armor? That armor is explosives in a light case designed to explode and disrupt the shaped charge head of a missle. You could do the same thing by "polarizing" a hull. Hmmm... Now where have I heard of that before... Wink

Quote:

And from my POV, that's what the base armor is also supposed to represent IMHO: increase in strenght of the base hull versus lower CONstruction hulls.

No. My view of the hull is just that. Picture a modern navy warship that is compartmentalized. Built with basic Armor...



Quote:

And before you argue about realisticity: why do we have to destroy the whole armor layer before being able to destroy a ship instead of hammering a single point on the vessel and destroying everything from the inside when it is breached?

Wow, tough crowd. Back at you. Why would any sane Admiral order all the shields on every ship of a particular class to be removed, before moving on to the armor of individual ships, using beam weapons? That right there is much more unrealistic than your armor question.

You can just assume that the Armor value is not the "true" value, but a set arbitrary averaged value before catastrophic burn through somewhere in the ship.

There is no similar concept that I can conceptualize for "Let's combine all the shields of every ship into one big shield". I mean, be honest, if it was possible, you don't think that there would be burn throughs at points of concentrated fire? Really?

And if a stack can do it, why not all the ships in the battle?

Quote:

I think armored STARS! vessel have it quite good already. Wink


I suppose you want your opponets to use armor. Good plan!

-Matt
...




Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Disposable income
Next Topic: Mineral Extraction Timetables
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed May 08 02:54:36 EDT 2024