home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!rat!ucselx!crash!malloy
- From: malloy@crash.cts.com (Sean Malloy)
- Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
- Subject: Re: Realism vs. Mechs
- Message-ID: <1992Dec24.154425.19795@crash>
- Date: 24 Dec 92 23:44:25 GMT
- References: <1h9carINNot5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <seablade-231292104211@128.95.123.173> <Bzq9ID.735@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <Bzq9ID.735@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga) writes:
- >And it was always pretty darn stupid. Any sort of high tech machinery
- >requires that you have a basic understanding of how the system operates
- >to repair it. If the IS had no idea how any of the machinery worked, they
- >couldn't fix anything and all the 'Mechs would be broken down within about
- >half a year. (Anyone who has worked on any high-tech military equipment will
- >back this up. Mean time between failure in weapons systems is measured in
- >hours, not centuries.)
-
- Not to mention the ratio between service hours and maintenance hours -- it
- is not unusual for a modern aircraft to require anywhere between ten and
- twenty man-hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time in order to
- keep it functioning. How much more sophisticated are the electronics,
- power, weapons, and other systems in a 'mech?
-
- It seems to me that the way to decisively defeat a force of 'mechs isn't to
- go out and blow them to scrap, but to conduct strikes against their
- maintenance areas, then harass them to keep them active until a vital
- system fails. But then, that wouldn't make for an entertaining game.
-
-
- --
- random sig #69:
- Sean Malloy Navy Personnel R&D Center | Kzinti Diplomatic Corps
- San Diego, CA 92152-6800 |
- malloy@nprdc.navy.mil < different | let's do lunch
- crash!malloy@nosc.navy.mil < systems |
-