Edmund Chiu (edf91@worldnet.att.net)
Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:05:18 -0800


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lim Jyue" <lim_jyue@pacific.net.sg>
To: <gundam@aeug.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [gundam] Role of Warships in UC: Was: I-Fields..

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

    I suddenly feel like I am talking with a lawyer...

> 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.

    But isn't that what "scare" means? It basically discourage enemy MS from
getting close and make the enemy ships move, hopefully some ship would get
hit. That's what I think the beam weaponry is for on ships.

> 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.

    I am not saying that weapons were "mounted" to for scare effect - I am
just saying that in reality, the weapons probably act like support fire or
"scare" shots that anything real damaging, at least most of the time.

>
> 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.

    You would be surprised by the amount of space junk - in the era of
minovsky particle, it seems that most ships cannot really tell a rock from a
ship, so aiming at ships are much harder. I believe most of the time they
aim at spots where they see enemy fire from before fire back. Both side know
that "seeing" another ship is dangerous - it mean for MS or even ship to aim
is much easier, so I would assume most ships would try to stay in space with
"junk" so it would confuse the enemy.

> 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.

    I am not sure why, but almost all UC Gundam fans I know of try to limit
the UC timeline to around V Gundam, since it was the last in the timeline
where Tomino works on. Of course you can talk about it, but with basically
no "real" anime or information available on UC after V Gundam, I would try
not to drag the talk into that era, since the only "reliable" source of
information came from G-Savior the game, where the information might be
"changed" when they release it as a series...

    You have to agree, though, that as of 0156 UC timeline, I-Field is still
not found even in most MA except really fancy units, so you can assume
I-Field is either not proven technology or really expensive to build or
maintain...

>
> 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.

    We are sure that there's more happening then what we're shown on the
series, but what exactly happen on the field is something we can not really
agree on...

>
> 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.

    But it also create another problem - projectile weapons can be shot
down, along with MS, but where can you find so many pilots to pilot MS? You
don't think AEUG ask Fa and Katsu to be pilots just because they wanted to,
right? MS pilots don't grow on trees, you know....

    It sound promising, but I still think maintaining I-Field on ships, at
least to the time of 0153 or so, is still not really possible...

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

    I meant regular beam shot, not like those Hi Mega Cannon of ZZ...

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

    Sounds like George W. Bush ^_^

>
> 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!)

    Are you sure about that? When in battle, at least in the era of Zeta all
the way to F91, even dummies can confuse almost all of the sensor and what
not of both side into shooting at them, so it's pretty much like ancient
warfare where you cannot really see the enemy you're trying to kill...

> 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?

    Probably nothing, since any type of defense against beam would be energy
consuming, and the only really effective way of blocking shots are beam
shield, which we didn't see on ships until F91 to V Gundam. If you want to
find any type of defense system for ships, just look at what's available for
MS, which is much cheaper to produce for. Other than regular shields, the
only thing I can think of is beam shield and I-Field. Beam shield is already
used on ships by V Gundam, and I-Field is still pretty rare, even in V
Gundam era, so we would just "assume" it's really expensive or cannot last
long enough to be effective for ship use (remember, they have to block
really high power shots. We still didn't know whether higher power beam
shots can go through I-Field).

> 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. =)

    I don't remember - I think I fall asleep reading volume 1 ^_^ Other than
remembering that Amuro slept with Sayla, I don't remember much from the
novel...

-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Nov 17 2000 - 13:40:35 JST