Subject:
|
Re: Libertador - Light Penetration Fighter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:36:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1017 times
|
| |
|
|
Of course, it makes it all pretty easy when you can invent your own
technology.
Personally, the doohickey coil in my Spiffcraft is proof against any weapon.
Mmmmm, leather seat.
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
> From: "Mike Petrucelli" <lordinsanity@usa.net>
>
> Isn't that basicly irrelivent if the capital ship can use its heavy weapons on
> such a large target?
>
> Of course it could be argued that smaller mass means more efficent engines and
> faster more manuverable fighters. This of course would be more valuble than
> getting killed by the capital ship despite better shielding and thicker armor.
> Now I am also assuming our base comparison is an X-wing or compareable
> fighter.
>
> Now my basic stock fighter
> http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/sputnik/86/fang.html
> versus an X-wing would go like this. Fang comes to a dead stop. X-wing fires
> at Fang while pilot laughs for an hour at the pretty colors bouncing off his
> ship. Fang pilot gets bored and activates his Xlaxer node defence system. A
> beam fires from the node and the X-wing is incinerated instantly. The pilot
> makes a mental note that he didn't even need his offensive Xlaxer cannons.
> Now picture captial ship defences verses a huge fighter.
>
> -Lord Insanity (who still thinks Star Wars fighters are rediculously over
> sized
> antique junk.)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertador - Light Penetration Fighter
|
| (...) So? That's nothing. My civilisation evolved past fighters a long time ago. We fly around in space with jetpacks that contain a Cyttorak crystal, which give our troopers totally inpenetrable defense. If they deem it necessary to take out (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertador - Light Penetration Fighter
|
| (...) Isn't that basicly irrelivent if the capital ship can use its heavy weapons on such a large target? Of course it could be argued that smaller mass means more efficent engines and faster more manuverable fighters. This of course would be more (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.space)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
