Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Revised Smart Armor System (Was SAS)
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:53:38 -0500
On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:14:00 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
<SNIP>
>SAS only works when activated, and the "smart" part refers to the
>fact that it only activates where needed. The rest of the vehicle
>retains the SAS; this is reflected in the TN for the roll to see if it
>goes off.
>
>However, there is one thing I find impractical about this armor:
>the mesh screen. This would not survive for very long on an
>armored vehicle driving cross-country. One drive through a forest
>and the whole mes{h|s} would be stripped off, I have this
>feeling...
>
>--
>Gurth@******.nl -
<SNIP Sig>

Ok, what about this ... ditch the mesh and say activation is based on a
sensor test (so a vehicle with SAS -MUST- have at least Rating 1 Sensors)
... This decreases the chance of it going off so make the T# 2 +1 per
previous hit ... hopefully this will be balanced ... What do you think?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 2
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Revised Smart Armor System (Was SAS)
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:34:26 +0100
Alfredo B Alves said on 12:53/18 Jul 98,...

> Ok, what about this ... ditch the mesh and say activation is based on a
> sensor test (so a vehicle with SAS -MUST- have at least Rating 1 Sensors)
> ... This decreases the chance of it going off so make the T# 2 +1 per
> previous hit ... hopefully this will be balanced ... What do you think?

That may be a slight bit impractical when it comes to detecting
rounds coming in at 1,500 m/s... Vehicle sensors are intended to
detect other vehicles, I feel, not weapons fire directed at the
vehicle.

Yes, there currently are radars used to detect artillery weapons,
but the difference here is that artillery rounds fly in a large arc,
whereas fire directed at a vehicle would come more or less
straight at it, or at least in a much lower arc. That makes
detection much more difficult, I feel.

If you do want the SAS to be activated by the sensors, then
perhaps a higher TN is in order; 5 as the base, +1 per previous
hit maybe?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"That's IT, lunchbox!!! We'll go to Shermer, Illinois!"
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Revised Smart Armor System (Was SAS), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!