Lim Jyue (lim_jyue@pacific.net.sg)
Mon, 20 Nov 2000 02:05:38 +0800


        I'm trying to reduce the number of mails on this thread, so I'm
combining a couple of mails together.

At 21:05 11/16/2000 -0800, Edmund Chiu wrote:
>> 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...

        Sorry; too many years of gaming with power gamers taught me to look
carefully at sentences and pick out problem areas.. =)

> 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.

        IMO it's more of a secondary purpose -- the primary purpose of any
offensive weapons mounted on a warship would be to sink other warships. When
two sides engage in combat, scare tactics rarely works since both sides are
commited and would be until one side is reduced below a certain strength.

> 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 think you are referring to shoal zone battles, in whcih it would
be similar to this. But I recall some combat occuring in areas where there
are very little cover, so distance is the main problem. But as I mentioned,
telescopic optics can make up for this.

> 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.

        Well, I hope I didn't artificially end it there too, it's just that
series after V tends to be a bit hazy for me; even V itself is a relative
unknown to me.

> 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...

        I would assume expense is a problem, since I-field barriers have
been around for almost a whole century by UC 0156.

>MS pilots don't grow on trees, you know....

        Sigh. You just shot down your own arguments, 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 disagree, but this argument would get us nowhere, so I propose we
agree to disagree, and leave it as thus.

> 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...

        I'm not too sure about this, but you do have a point. I remember,
however, in CCA that a visual inspection by MS did unmask Char's balloon
ploy, so it may be just a matter of looking closer.

>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

        Even beam shields were pretty rare, up to at least Crossbone Gundam
-- only one ship had it. I'm not too sure how widespread it is in V, but I
would consider the adoption of beam shields by warships to be a possible
precursor to a full-blown deployment of I-fields to warship.

>We still didn't know whether higher power beam shots can go through I-Field).

        In theory, yes. But I've covered this in another mail, so I won't go
into it here.

> 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...

        Oh, you *would* remember that, of all things. =)

At 19:59 11/17/2000 +0800, Zhou Tai An wrote:
>Vulcans won't do the job as well as a beam barrage will. (No, I'm not
>arguing your point. ^_^)

        Unfortunately, you are indirectly supporting my claim..

>A MS can still withstand vulcan shots, and you also want to keep the
>enemy MSes away from your ship - vulcans won't travel that far.

        Actually, considering that there's really no resistance to slow a
projectile weapon in space, projectile weapons do have a decent range. It's
a matter of targetting..

>Ummm, yes. That's my point. They carry guns because their design hadn't been
>changed yet.

        You missed my point. Beam weapons came after the discovery of
Minovsky particles -- which means, the use of Minovsky particles (and their
effects on targetting) is present even before there are MS. But beam weapons
are still used regardless of the targetting difficulties posed by the
particles, which implies that ship-to-ship combat using beam weapons are
common place before MS development, and may (and probably still is) a major
part of naval combat.

>> But we do see ship kills. I've cited 2 examples off-hand, and I'm
>>sure I can find more if I go through the series that I have.
>Okay, I await your results. ^_^

        Don't hold your breath -- I want to get through Gasaraki AND Maison
Ikkoku before I go back to watch for these.

At 20:05 11/17/2000 +0800, Zhou Tai An wrote:
>Well, I refer you to the large space battles in Gundam - there are
>definitely enough ships spewing out enough beam fire to count as suppressive
>fire.

        But is it suppressive fire? Or fire intended to kill the enemy (and
just missing)? Suppressive fire is by definition fire directed to keep an
enemy pinned. Since there's no real cover in space (aside from shoal
regions), you can't pin down a warship.

        Fire meant to turn a formation, maybe. Fire meant to disrupt a
formation, maybe. Suppressive fire? Not really.

>> 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 for how long?

        Difficult to say. With so much reliance on beam weaponry, it's
entirely possible the changeover would take a long time. Remember, even
though MS are proven weapons, the Federation did not really convert totally
to it within the OYW.

>> I don't think there's such a thing as "weak" beam shots. =)
>I think they are. A beam rifle shot, or grazing shot, won't do as much
>damage as a beam cannon hitting dead straight.

        We are talking about grazing or near-misses. I meant dead-on shots
by beam weapons -- I don't knwo if there's a difference, and I really don't
see it as really possible given the way mega-particles are produced.

>Defense against beam weapons, or defense utilizing beam weapons?

        Defense against beam weapons.

-------------
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 Mon Nov 20 2000 - 02:50:06 JST