I have seen coherent arguments in favor of retaining the spaceship minimum ar-
mor level of 40 in any revised vehicle system. Permit me to ask a few ques-
tions about how related matters should be handled.
If we accept that 40 is a "legal" requirement, or a "nice to be safe" engi-
neering standard (and I'll accept either argument as being reasonable), how
should I handle something like Scott Kellogg's space going fighter planes? If
you are part of a planet attempting to declare independence from the Imperium,
or protect itself from Aslan or Vargr invaders (my Spinward Marches bias is
showing, I know) or whatever...what penalty do I invoke to make you design
things for high survivability when you only need them for orbital work, or
only expect them to last for one combat engagement, or whatever other reason
that you can think of that would lead you to cut corners on "safe" practices?
I hesitate to say something CAN'T be doen, when the truth is that it SHOULDN'T
be done. With all the disparate cultures of the Imperium, I can readily be-
lieve that there would be some where you could find pilots willing to fly
unsafe but cheap (and therefore numerous) craft in defense of their homeland.
Need I mention Japan and the Second Global War as an example from ancient
Earth history? In a similar line, what about the "triple computer for spacego-
ing craft" rule? At 60 MCr a unit for Model 9's, maybe it's worth only put-
ting one in a fighter and accepting the losses. (My TL15 Lance and Javelin
fighters had 75% of their cost sunk into a triple computer system--so with one
computer you could buy twice as many.)
Good Discussion so far...
Rob Dean