Zhou Tai An (kain@pacific.net.sg)
Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:17:24 +0800 (SGT)


>> 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.

Remember, it also takes down stray MSes/vessels and works as covering fire...

> 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.

I get what you mean, don't worry. ^_^

> 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.

Good points.

>> 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...

That's probably the best point yet - why doesn't a large organization like
the Jupiter Fleet outfit its ships with I-Fields, if they are readily available?

>> 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...

He's arguing from a different point here...

> 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...

True.

>> 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

Another point...can even if I-Fields can be installed, how long can you
sustain them?

Zhou Tai An (kain@pacific.net.sg)

"There is no one simple truth." - Rune Walsh

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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 18 2000 - 03:01:57 JST