
May 25th, 2004, 04:43 PM
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: RI. USA
Posts: 1,470
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Those components would be effectively useless. Each individual component needs more hit points than average internals to even begin to have an effect. Several times as many hit points are needed to get decent protection.
Leaky armors should have more hit points than normal armors, as they do not have the hit first ability, and do not provide magic wall protection.
|
Understood - however, this new (1 or 5kt spaced) Brace Component is not the Primary Armor in protection for AIC - Also to say (leaky armor ) is not a true Armor per say, it is a Component with NO ability as it excludes Armored Abilities. Hence, it hangs aloft as any other Component with a chance to be stricken down by an attackers broadsides.
With PvK’s Plate, Ablative and Emissive Plate and some Racial Armory for AIC; will yield all - the first hit requirements, expected from any Armor, and that is: to receive any normal fired weapons hit, first.
However, for Players not endowed with armor skipping racial weapon or a Null Weapon and that does not solely desire to rely on Shields, due to the prospect of a combined attack that may also include the standard Shield Depleting Weapons, then - absolutely yes, (leaky armor) in general, is a viable defense - as is any High Structured Component that is low in cost: not unlike PvKs (high Structure) Shield Generator that was implemented; in part, for a defense against Engine Overloading Weapons with a dual role that also served as leaky armor - introduced in a past PvK Proportions MOD.
- - - - -
Now to question: When all armor ability is vacant from a Ship/Base or Planet - what is the determining factor for the random vulnerability of the remaining Components (internals), this I must ask. For if it is the largest Structure that may become the most logical target - then a Larger Structure would replace ARMORED abilities and become a full replacement or alternative to Armor ability - hence if true, immediately voiding all investments of an Armor Skipping dependent Race and rendering his, her, or the AI - long endured game, useless. Would you not say?
On the other hand, if the random factor is based on equality of structures, and if so - the more 20kt structured (leaky armor) would positively influence the survivability of a 20kt Engine; However, in all probability less provocative in its defense when protecting a 30kt weapon or Component - If true, would you not also agree.
In either above case or even neither - The Armored (PvK PLATE, Ablative and various other Armories) as means to defend a Ship, Unit, Base or Planet (are) readily available and that the main reason to choose a leaky Armor is to defend against an Armor Skipping Race, then - Surly I/we do not want an immediate cancellation of that Armor Skipping Races Abilities; however, a modest tool for the defender should be of no great consequence.
= = =
With a few (1 spaced) Bracer's at 5kt Structure, it may brace a small 5kt Component and certainly would add nicely to fill a Ship with four or less kt of space remaining for those that wish not to use the v5.0 1kt Boarding D Squads.
With the first basic 10kt Brace and all spaced at 5; also available at the beginning of your game, may have a slight influence for the protection of some Sensors, Bridge, Life Support and etc. And that price, it cant be a bad thing.
Level-I Brace from Armor Research one - will have 15kt and still just Basic in its nature.
Level-II Brace from Armor Research two - a few of these at 20 kt may have a fine partnership with the 20kt Engines
Level-III Brace - At 30kt, and with a few of these installed; I believe some Weapon Systems and Shields will be in very good company.
With its respective Armor Research of four a Level-IV Brace - will be 45 KT, and Level V at 50kt and the probable increase is plus 5kt thus, thru the remaining armor levels.
[ May 25, 2004, 18:23: Message edited by: JLS ]
|