Zhou Tai An (kain@pacific.net.sg)
Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:56:54 +0800 (SGT)

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

Still sounds like a lawyer?

>> 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.

Still don't really believe it. I maintain my belief that beam weapons are
there to saturate the area with fire, not to do real damage.

> 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 believe I countered this already...

>> 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.

This is just areas of concern, not important...

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

There ya go. ^_^

>> 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.

True, but I second Edmund's question - what would convince you?

> 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.

As Edmund said, that's when the screen is relatively clear...

> 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.


>>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..

No I'm not. Prove it. ^_^ I'm talking about beam shots working against MSes,
not ships.

>>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..

According to my friend (he knows this stuff better than me, so if you take
offense, mail him ^_^) the lack of air resistance actually makes the bullets
less effective. He tried to explain the actual mechanics to me, but we were
both too sleepy at that time.

> 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.

I told you before my opinion, and it's still there - the guns are to provide
saturation fire, not to damage ships. ^_^

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

Up to you.

> 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.

Oh yeah? Think about the sheer volume of beam shots in large battles - ships
can't exactly move about very freely, you know.

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

I'd say all three, actually.

> 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.

Because of the lack of cash more than anything...

> 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.

Well, when you said no weak beam shots, I was assuming no dead-on hits -
those should total anything.

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

More MSes. ^_^ Increasing agility and speed.

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 Mon Nov 20 2000 - 22:41:13 JST