 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||
Lim Jyue (lim_jyue@pacific.net.sg)
Sat, 04 Nov 2000 03:33:00 +0800
At 00:54 11/03/2000 -0800, Edmund Chiu wrote:
> I-Field is useful on MS or MA because almost all solid projectile, the
>"weakness" of I-Fields, are much slower than beam based weapons, so in theory,
>it's much harder to hit a MS or MA with solid projectile than beam rifle
shots.
Very good point. However, only larger MS or MA get an I-field,
AFAIK, so most of them should be relying on their heavier armour to shrug
off these projectile hits.
>For warship, however, is different because a ship's mobility is very limited,
>so even having I-Field won't protect a warship very much, since the enemies
can
>just use something else.
Point, but a warship in space in a battle takes a lot of punishment
too -- in almost all the naval battle scenes we see, the warships are just
pounding away, and not fighting for position. At range, lucky beam shots
will take out ships, but missiles and projectile weapons tend not to be very
useful, thanks to Minoysky particles. These incidental beam shots is what
the proposed I-field is supposed to deflect anyway.
At close, which we rarely see, massive battering by both sides would
quickly disable ships, but again, an I-field equipped ship should be able to
survive longer to pummel a non-equipped ship.
Furthermore, warship/MS tactics tends to favour that the warships
hang back to provide long range (read: Beam weapon) supporting fire to the
MSes until they get too close. So an I-field ship could simply just let the
opposite beams bounce off the defenses, and then concentrate on eliminating
the enemy MSes before they get too close.
No matter how I look at it, equipping a ship with I-fields would
give it a large advantage in battle. The technical problems can be ovecome
-- the theory is sound and it has even been put into practice in selected MA/MS.
Even using OYW vintage generators, which could only run for 15-20
minutes, this "short" period of time is enough to give a fleet an edge in
battle.
Put aside the economic and technical limitations for a time, and
imagine if Zeon had been able to refit their Musais and Chibas with I-field
generators that can last for 15 to 20 minutes.
(Since Zeon were the first to develop defensive I-fields, let's give
it to them)
Given this, and assume we refight the Abowaku battle with these
ships, who would have an upper hand? The Federation might still win, but the
losses they will now suffer should be much higher.
> Another concern is the cost - how many MS or MA did you see equip with
>I-Field? Not that many. How many of them are mass production type models?
Very true. However, IMO, had CCA not occured in 0091 but say, in
0100, the technology to produce cheap, effective I-field should have been
developed and rushed into production. From what I read from Mark's site, the
theory behind the technology was well understood, and only engineering
challenges stood between a economically feasible generator.
With Char's shennigans, the Federation -- and by extension, all the
major weapons manufacturers -- would have an incentive to quickly develop
such technologies had Char's counterattack been delayed by a decade.
>With the "limited" usefulness of I-Field, it just doesn't make any economical
>sense to add I-Field to warships.
Depends, really, on how the I-field generators are placed and the
cost to equip a ship with it. I disagree on the "limited" part -- almost all
warships in the UC era comes equipped primarily with beam weapons. Yes, MSes
can get under the I-field, but the advantage the I-field equipped ships have
over another non-equipped ship is significant enough IMO.
-------------
Lim Jyue
ICQ: 24737555
I am careful not to confuse excellence with perfection.
Excellence I can reach for; perfection is God's business.
-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 04 2000 - 04:19:03 JST