|
|
Post by lordadmiral on Sept 14, 2018 16:14:51 GMT
Wouldn't the Concave Armour setting be ineffiecient as armour? It would save weight and lower the ships cross-section, but wouldn't it be far more expensive to produce, maintain, and create several bullet traps in the armour? I'm probably wrong, but I thought this would be good for disscussion. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Sept 14, 2018 16:24:29 GMT
Wouldn't the Convex Armour setting be ineffiecient as armour? It would save weight and lower the ships cross-section, but wouldn't it be far more expensive to produce, maintain, and create several bullet traps in the armour? I'm probably wrong, but I thought this would be good for disscussion. Cheers. You mean concave.
Saving weight (or mass, to be precise) is already big. Bullet traps an avoiding them are a matter of design and on the flip side you get to create your own cover with concave armour.
Production and maintenance are important factors and could contribute to spread both convex ships and polyhedral hulls, but they also heavily depend on tech used.
Actually I'd expect convex stacks that are efficiently covered by convex armour to be quite widespread, but not necessarily convex armour over non-convex stacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Sept 20, 2018 23:39:20 GMT
COADE ships are not structural skin but they're body-on-frame, so shape of armor wouldn't make any significant difference in cost. You can tile them on the frame in whatever shape. If so, lower mass and cross section rules everything.
|
|
