 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||
Lim Jyue (lim_jyue@pacific.net.sg)
Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:48:40 +0800
At 11:44 11/06/2000 -0800, Mark Simmons wrote:
> I do recall one of the Albion pilots shooting a Gelgoog Marine to bits
>with a burst of 90mm rounds... by my dim recollection, each shot seemed
>capable of blowing off a limb. With firepower like that, who needs a beam
>spray gun?
When did that happen? At the end, or during the initial contact with
Cima's fleet?
Oh, BTW, it just occured to me that we tend not to take into account
the lethality of battle damage in space as compared to on the ground.
Pressure inequalities within an MS can kill the MS with a small nick, and
vaccum coldness can freeze joints if exposed.
> In fact, the Byg Zam is supposed to run on _four_ warship reactors -
>and that's to generate a field to protect something that's just 60 meters
>long. Presumably a full-size warship would require even more power to
>protect its vital areas.
Hmm. I was thinking about this, regarding what Leslie said about the
Byg Zam. I still need to refine the idea a bit more, so I'll get back to you.
> Beg to differ. Obviously there's the fact that beam shields block
>everything, at least up to a certain point, while I-field barriers block
>only beam weapons but seem to be a lot stronger - so widespread use of I-
>field barriers tilts the balance toward machine guns, bazookas, cannons,
>missiles, and melee weapons, while beam shields encourage creation of
>super-powerful beam weapons and VSBRs.
Sorry, meant another thing when I wrote that. I meant that the
inclusion of beam shields or I-fields would have some impact on tactics, so
they are similar in that aspect. My fingers talked while my brain slept. =)
>Specificially, a beam-shield-protected mobile suit would be defenseless
against
>funnel attacks. I-field barriers are omni-directional...
A couple of things here. Firstly, a beam-shield would still block a
funnel attack, if it's in the right location. As I mentioned once, an
Incom-beam shield system could provide a pinpoint barrier-like defense
without the need for Newtypes -- as I understood Incom, of course.
Secondly, a funnel can also sidle up under an I-field to deal damage
to the ship, so it's not 100% protection. And didn't the Elemeth's bits, the
precessor of the funnel system, carried nuclear warheads too? BOOM!
Also, somehow we assumed that an I-field has to be an
omni-directional shield. Why not a directional I-field, to cut costs?
>That said, I think it's been clearly established that the two
>systems are _not_ interchangeable - not every mobile suit that carries a
>beam shield could carry an I-field barrier, and their defensive qualities
>are very different.
Hmm. Got me thinking. As the basic gear of I-field projection is
similar in nature, is it possible to create a variable-density I-field
projection gear, and have either system functional at one time?
-------------
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 Wed Nov 08 2000 - 02:34:12 JST