> From: [email removed]
> By the way, have I interpreted the hull construction rules correctly as
> they state them? According to the way I read it, steel, superdense, and
> coherant superdense all require the same thickness to give an equal amount
> of armored protection. Thus a 1 centimeter thickness of steel will have
> the same strength as a 1 centimeter plate of coherant superdense, but the
> superdense will weigh much less. If so, why is it called 'dense'? It
> makes no sence to me.
The armor level has no direct relation to thickness. What the rules mean are
that to reach a certain level of protection using superdense instead of steel
you will need much less metal because the greated strength of the superdense,
thus the lower weigh.
In old Striker it was stated explicitely that the 'armor mult' figures for a
certain armor factor equals the number of centimeters of hard steel needed to
get that armor factor. This was further modified by the now-so-called 'weight
modifier' on the hull materials table. Since hard steel have 1.0 in it and
bonded superdense is 0.16 every 1cm of steel will equate 0.16mm of bonded
superdense.
They apparently postulate that all materials will have the same density,
which is bogus science but a little less bogus that 1cm steel having the same
strengh as 1cm superdense but the superdense being lighter.
(Looking at 'wet navy' in C53, it seems that that form of more bogus
science has indeed snuck in the back way and become standard. Sigh! It would
be interesting to see what Terry McInnes would say if asked how his model
meshes with the one given in the Digest article about Radiation (which was
consistent with old Striker))
- -bertil-
- --
"ninetysix pretenders to the throne
ninetysix pretenders to the throne
shoot one down
fight for the crown
ninetyfive pretenders to the throne"