 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||
Edmund Chiu (edf91@worldnet.att.net)
Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:13:30 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lim Jyue" <lim_jyue@pacific.net.sg>
To: <gundam@aeug.org>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [gundam] I-Fields..
> 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.
In the beginning, yes, but as demonstrated in 0083, it still doesn't
take that many hits to take down even a big MA like GP03D. Besides, having
something impact on your shield or armor would still distract the pilot, and
in the era where beam saber can basically cut through everything, the
distraction might all the enemy need to destroy the target. The best
"survival" tip of almost all UC timeline is still dodge, and dodge well...
> 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.
It's because they cannot see each other, literally - most of the time,
they just know the general direction of the target. How often do you see
shots, no matter beam or missiles, actually hit the ship? Most of the time
(at least the ones I remember), even beam shot will take a few shots to take
down a warship, unless you shot at the engine or bridge (hence the reason
why after CCA, the warship "pull" the bridge part closer to the body of the
ship so it's harder to hit).
>
> 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.
But we also create another problem - how long can the I-Field last? We
have not seen any evidence that I-Field can last that long, and warship
usually stay in the battlefield much more than a MS or MA, so even if
(that's a big if), we can put I-Field on ship, how long can it last?
>
> 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.
I don't know what you have been watching, but MS is still a deadly
warship killer - why do you think warships need "guards"? Because ships
became easy target for MS because no matter what "field" you have, given
such a big target for a MS to aim for, I am sure it has no problem aiming a
few good missile hit or a beam saber cut, on the engine or bridge.
>
> 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.
But it would just resemble the ship battle in V Gundam - with beam
shield, almost all head-on shot would be block. What do you think do the
most kills? MS.
>
> 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.
But I also think it would just give their position away - if all shots
"block" would trigger some sort of light show like in 0083, it certainly
will do more harm than good sometimes...
> 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.
But you also have to remember that Big Zam is the ONLY unit that has
I-Field, which suggest that I-Field is still pretty much unproven
technology...
> 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.
In theory, yes, but if it's really as useful and as cheap as you say,
why don't ANY warships in V Gundam era has it? Why do they rely on beam
shield instead? There has to be a reason for that...
> 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.
I am not certain on this, but I thought that most warship are shot down
by MS, not by enemy warship. Mark, any help here?
-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 04 2000 - 04:50:37 JST