Richie Ramos (
Fri, 03 Nov 2000 20:59:25 +0800

>> One thing that bugs me. If the I-field is so effective at blocking
>>beam weapons, but requires large generators and coolant systems, why didn't
>>they build the !#$@$ thing into warships? Granted, the expense should be
>>high, but protecting valuable ships like MS carriers is crucial, especially
>>when you consider how limited MS ranges are.
> Good question. I suppose part of it is the greater size of the vessel -
>a mobile armor, even a big one like the Byg Zam or Neue Ziel, is usually
>no more than 80 meters long. But a warship will be 250 meters long or
>more - much greater surface area, more particles, stronger field required
>to protect the entire ship. The beam shields they end up using on ships
>(i.e. in V Gundam) are only 80-100 meters across, since they only cover
>one end of the ship.

hmmm. one way could have been to have movable shields of a sort. This
kinda reminds me of the SDF-!'s pinpoint beam barrier. If you have that
linked to a autocontrol system, then yes you could have a smaller field on
a large ship...but it would have to make the hard choice of deciding what
attack to block in a multiple attack situation.

> You could still have an I-field "bubble" protecting the bridge, but I
>guess it just wasn't deemed to be a big enough advantage...

only if the bridge can separate on its own, I suppose, as a very heavily
shielded lifeboat.

>> True as of up to ZZ, but by F91, UC 0123, I-Field generators are
>>small and reliable enough to mount on practically most MSes -- in the form
>>of a beam shield, which is basically a beam weapon encased in a I-Field!
> Only in the sense that a beam saber is a beam weapon encased in an I-
>field. A beam shield is just a big flat beam saber. Then we have the
>"beam rotor" seen in V Gundam, which is just a spinning beam saber
>(perhaps inspired by the anti-Bug tactics of the F91) which doubles as a
>makeshift beam shield _and_ a propulsion device...

I actually laughed when I first saw the Beam rotor at work, pretty weird
way to get around and have a shield of sorts.

>WooJin writes,
>>1)VSBRs.- I'm willing to bet that a sufficiently narrow(powerful?) VSBR
>>show should be able to penetrate an I-field.
> I've never - ever! - seen any beam attack penetrate an I-field barrier.
>The VSBR is designed to penetrate beam shields, which it can indeed do on
>its maximum-penetration setting, but beam shields are easier to collapse
>than I-field barriers.

would there be a case of an I-field overloading because of a beam hit? I
mean, yes, it is a fine distinction, but it would change the way I-fields
are used if you can overload it.

> Beam shields block physical attacks as well as beam attacks. As
>Crossbone Gundam notes, after the introduction of the beam shield, mobile
>suit battles tend to be decided at close range. In this case, the shot
>lancers and machine guns used by the Crossbone Vanguard have the distinct
>advantage of not making the enemy mobile suit's reactor blow up in your
>face. Remember, this is also the era in which they start using disabled
>mobile suits as ad-hoc tac-nukes.

ah yes, I remember that. it was a very effective trick. which beggars the
question, was it ever used before in the UC continuum?

If I wanted to rage against the dying of the light, I would have brought a

Richard "Richie" Ramos, Associate Editor
Localvibe -- Changing the way you see your city!

ofc: (632) 4167486
fax: (632) 4167479
cel: 0917-4024780
hse: (632) 7231308 (emergency use)
ICQ#: 12914919

I am NOT a starving writer.

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Nov 03 2000 - 22:12:03 JST