Okay, take 500 meters instead. The McKenna will still take zero damage in that situation, it's armor is still absurdly better. Or throw out the Black Star entirely and go with the Shadow and Vorlon ships getting ripped apart by a nuke at a significant distance I also posted. Again, the McKenna's armor would tank that without needing anything more than overtime for the paint-and-chip detail to repair the paint, and those ships are immensely better than an Omega. Coupled with the several other times we hear characters talking about low-yield nukes as superweapons and the aforementioned 200 Megawatt pulse canon, it's fairly clear their weaponry is low-energy overall and their armor would have to match. I don't have to cherry-pick the Black Star, because it wasn't a one-off or unique event.
I'm totally open to the McKenna having better armour, maybe it does, it has a better airwing and better auxiliary craft. That's why this match up caught my interest enough to get me to post which is a rare thing. I was genuinely interested in figuring out how the McKenna would operate with those auxiliaries, thats a total wild card in B5 because no ship in that setting has a similar ability.
In my reading firepower is comparable, protection is comparable, acceleration is comparable (I wasn't going to argue 15gs for linear acceleration incidently so you can wind back that accusation) The Omega has better soft factors like sensors and EW, the McKenna has better auxiliary craft. One side can't just overpower the other, its a real fight where tactics are going to matter.
And you killed it dead with candyfloss armour
Even now you aren't walking away from it despite everything
I wasn't going to actually use the game, it was an example of why game mechanics are dangerous precisely because it contradicts on screen evidence, we do actually agree on that one and the times I gave actual figures were based on the show, not the books. I stand by the position on canon, but honestly there aren't any actual numbers in those books. It doesn't give megawatts or ranges in kilometres, for a real debate the books offer very little.
I definitely got exhausted and it shows, but that was because of your own wank numbers and the utter unwillingness to accept that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong. Wank is taking a scene that shows an extreme set of numbers and trying to apply those extreme numbers to the whole setting when other scenes handily disprove them. Usually it is to inflate them, but it also applies to the opposite too. More of a hate wank I guess.
In hindsight I should have just pointed at the first nuke as proof and left it at that, so by engaging over a point of visual interpretation I made things more complex, but the net result is the same. You didn't accept that your explanation had flaws which made it unsteady. Now the other scenes you mention are better and there are plenty of other things that could have easily supported you, but you nailed your flag to that one and just wouldn't not accept you were plain old wrong.
So yeah, you're not a fool, you obviously have intelligence, but not budging on that when it was a bad position to hold just killed it. Without that road block things would have gone a bit better.
Well so I did, must have messed up my fraction editing that post. My error.
It wasn't a fraction mistake, the number 6 isn't there, it was just a mistake. I made a mistake too, my issue is partly that you didn't own it, but mainly you made an attack out of my point when you did the same thing. Just a bit dickish and doesn't look great to attack in someone else a flaw you too possess.