 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||
Edmund Chiu (edf91@worldnet.att.net)
Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:12:51 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lim Jyue" <lim_jyue@pacific.net.sg>
To: <gundam@aeug.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [gundam] Role of Warships in UC: Was: I-Fields..
> Sorry; too many years of gaming with power gamers taught me to
look
> carefully at sentences and pick out problem areas.. =)
If your point is valid, then I have no real problem with that, but I
think your "picks" have more to do with trying to me off track than anything
else. Of course, it could be just me ^_^
> 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.
If you see my other post, I didn't say weapon isn't intent to kill or
not - it just seems that the ship fire do act more like support fire than
not simply because they doesn't seem to hit that often...
> 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 thought that's only possible when there isn't a battle (meaning really
heavy battle going on) around the ship...
> 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.
Of course - not that many people watch Gundam after CCA (simply because
it isn't as popular)...
> I would assume expense is a problem, since I-field barriers have
> been around for almost a whole century by UC 0156.
Probably...
>
>
>
> >MS pilots don't grow on trees, you know....
>
> Sigh. You just shot down your own arguments, you know. =)
I know, and that's why my point is even more valid - if it's that
"great", why would people rush out and get I-Fields on all ships?
> I disagree, but this argument would get us nowhere, so I propose
we
> agree to disagree, and leave it as thus.
Just curious - what would convince you otherwise?
> 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.
And Bright didn't have a battle going on around him. When there's no
battle, radar is pretty accurate - otherwise, you are lucky to tell a rock
from a ship...
> 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.
Almost all ships I remember seeing in V Gundam have beam shield....
> > 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. =)
It's just that the novel version is pretty different from the anime, so
it's kinda hard for us to get the details out other than the one that is
really interesting...
-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Nov 20 2000 - 05:47:47 JST