Lim Jyue (lim_jyue@pacific.net.sg)
Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:21:01 +0800


At 08:28 11/15/2000 -0800, Edmund Chiu wrote:
> Once again, people completely miss the reason why I put quotes on the
>word - I put it there because I didn't really mean to use the word, but it
>is close enough.

        Oh, I think we got your meaning fine -- it's just that we think you
are mistaken when you said "..are mounted for..".

>Are you telling me that ships have a high rate of actually
>hitting the target? In the age of Minovsky particles? With the ships staying
>pretty far from each other, barely in visual range?

        Actually, Minovsky particles preceeds beam weaponry, so we can
assume any ships built with beam weaponry is also designed to deal with the
handicap. Before MSes, ships probably waded in closer to score hits, but
with the introduction of MSes, ships take a back-seat and pulled back. To
lent supporting fire, definitely, but not so much to scare as to try to
reduce the odds before the MSes get stuck in.

>I just meant that with the relatively small percentage of shots actually
>hitting the target, didn't it also act like coverfire and to "scare" the
>target into not moving?

        Well, yes, but I would argue that the "scare" effect is a side
effect of the weapon, but not the intent of the weapon itself. You said that
the beam weaponry were *mounted* more for a scare effect, which is what we
disagree with.

        And to be honest... the so-called suppressive works really well if
the enemy is in cover -- you splatter out enough shots to keep him down
behind cover, so that other units can get behind him. But (1) space doesn't
have that much cover -- not really big enough to hide a warship anyway --
and (2) beam weaponry are not of a high enough ROF to really do suppressive
fire. Containment and deterrent fire, definitely possible. Suppressive fire?
Difficult to image, at least for me.

> I am not saying it's not a good idea - we just think that with the high
>cost of I-Field and relatively ease of finding coutermeasures against
>I-Field, is it really worth it?

        We don't know for sure about the high cost of I-field -- we see some
indications that it was probably too expensive in the first UC century, but
we don't know how much cheaper it has became in the second.

        As for the countermeasures part -- it depends how effective the
warships are at dealing out damage to each other, Although I've been arguing
that they are more effective than they have been given credit for, we don't
know exactly how effective they are, so we can't be sure.

        However, I think all of us can agree that the widespread adoption of
I-field by warships would have some effects on tactics used by both sides --
more reliance on projectile weapons and missiles, more reliance on MSes.
That in itself should be worth something in the grand scheme of things.

> See my first paragraph - they have low percentage of hitting the target,
>but they do hit it from time and time. As we all know, unless you hit a
>weakness, a couple of weak beam shot won't down a ship.

        I don't think there's such a thing as "weak" beam shots. =)

        As for low percentage... Evidence? (^_^)

        I suspect the "edge of visual range" thing is a bit misleading. As
Zhou Tai An has mentioned, telescopic visuals are pretty good currently, so
why not use it here? (Hah! Got you there!)

> Of course it's a good idea - don't you think by providing beam screen is
>a good idea, when even "touching" one of these shot is probably enough to
>destroy a MS or even heavily damage a ship?

        Okie, now we are working on a somewhat similar basis. Let's do it
this way: If you were to take technology commonly available in the UC era,
what kind of beam weapon defense would you suggest?

> Then are you telling me that ship-to-ship is the majority of the fight,
>right? Probably, especially if both sides have really good MSes.

        No, not really. The proportion is probably close to 50-50, with a
slight edge going to MSes. The MSes also have to get around the opposite
side's MSes. In fact, IIRC, the novelization had lots of MS-MS combat, but
it's relatively rare to hear of MS -- even the Gundam -- sinking warships.
Heck, in the first book, I think the White Based chalked up more warship
kills than the Gundam and Guncannons. =)

-------------
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 Fri Nov 17 2000 - 13:06:27 JST