I just throw a different type of log on the fire and see what sparks fly.
Presently the only effective way to combat the large capital ships with
multiple screen levels is using missiles or pulse torpedo tubes. What if we
take page from the Starfleet Wars with reguard to screens and say they are
projected out around the ships.
If this is true then you can get under the screen. This allows a double edged
sword, you could possibly provide some protection to other ships if there
close enough (friend or foe) but if you under the screen when firing he gets
no screen defense bonus.
This change could make fighters quite deadly to even the big boys if
they can get in close. These ideas are only semi-coherent ramblings with
no play testing basis, therefore I have at this point no estimate as to the
range of projection of the screen but I'll say 4".
I don't think this would work at all if you use cm to measure, just due to the
miniature sizes.
Jim Bell Jnbell Christine Hartig writes (edited):
@:) What if we take page from the Starfleet Wars with reguard to @:) screens
and say they are projected out around the ships.
@:)
@:) If this is true then you can get under the screen.
This is a cool idea but I have no idea how to make it work. Ok, fine, I do
have an idea.
Extensible Screen Mass 5? Cost 35?
This device operates like a normal screen except that it can be projected much
further from the ship. For each device, the screened protection may be
extended an additional 3" from the projecting ship. However, the protection
afforded by the screens decreases by one level
with every 6" range increment. Thus a ship with level-3 extensible
screens can provide level-3 screening to any ship within 3", OR
level-2 screening to any ship within 6", OR level-1 screening to any
ship within 9". The radius of the screen must be recorded with movement orders
for the turn and the screen must remain at that radius for the entire turn.
The screen provides no protection from any weapon fired from within its
radius. No more than three extensible screens may be active on any given ship
during any given turn.
> On Apr 2, 9:48, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
According to some common opinions of the scale of FT, that's something like
3000 kilometers of extended radius! You could land your ship on Pluto and
protect the entire surface! Or, with just a bit more range, and you could bury
it in the middle of Mars and protect the entire planet.
> jjm@zycor.lgc.com writes:
@:) > For each device, the screened protection may be extended an @:) >
additional 3" from the projecting ship.
@:) According to some common opinions of the scale of FT, that's @:) something
like 3000 kilometers of extended radius! You could land @:) your ship on Pluto
and protect the entire surface! Or, with just a @:) bit more range, and you
could bury it in the middle of Mars and @:) protect the entire planet.
Cool. Let's do it.
Of course you'll have to find a miniature of Mars. Let's see... at
1/2400 scale that'd be....
> @:) > For each device, the screened protection may be extended an
111,204.2 inches.
Give or take.
;-)
Mk
> On Apr 2, 14:37, If it's tourist season why can't we shoot them? wrote:
Whereas the usual miniature for a planet is a 10" ball from Toys'R'Us. Just a
bit of incoherence in the "ground" scale and the scale of the minis (not that
all minis games don't share that problem to some extent).
What makes you think they don't?
:)
Gene
> ----------
> On Apr 2, 14:37, If it's tourist season why can't we shoot them? wrote:
> > Of course you'll have to find a miniature of Mars. Let's see...
at
> >1/2400 scale that'd be....
Just a
> Joachim Heck wrote:
I like the idea of providing extensible screens. I thought of this a while
back when checking out some Space Fleet minis. One ship was a large shield
generator which could protect nearby ships from beam fire. I would recommend
just allowing an extension of whatever shield strength the carrying ship has
at any point in time and just extend that to within a
6"
radius.
One thing to consider is does the shield extender provide a globe like area
effect to all ships within it's reach or is it projected to each friendly ship
within it's 6" radius. I would prefer the latter.
Excerpts from FT: 3-Apr-97 Re: Capital vs. others Debate by Mike
Miserendino@cris.co
> One thing to consider is does the shield extender provide a globe like
Yes, but how realistic is that? In Star Trek, where I seem to recall they've
shaped their shields on occation, it would likely work, but it doesn't seem
that practical to me. (Like the idea of shields themselves is realistic... oh,
well. Actually, I guess it does depend (sorta) on what you think the shields
are.)
The shield on the Castellan (the Space Fleet ship you mentioned) absorbed
*all* damage caused within its area of effect, whether the impacts were on
friendly or enemy ships... it acted a lot like Niven & Pournelle's CoDo
Langston Fields, absorbing weapons hits (not rams) and
exploding if it absorbed too much. A two-edged sword, and all that.
> Mike Miserendino writes:
@:) One thing to consider is does the shield extender provide a globe @:) like
area effect to all ships within it's reach or is it projected @:) to each
friendly ship within it's 6" radius. I would prefer the
@:) latter.
Especially if you were flying one of the protected ships, I'll
wager. I think that would make it too good - the main thing I like
about the idea is that the enemy can get inside your shields and shoot up your
unprotected ships. More of a trade off for the shield using player that way.
But think of the number of ships you could put in a blister pack!!!
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
Includes the Full Thrust Ship Registry Is your ship design here?
> Jon wrote:
Right! Now where did I put that 0000000000 brush?
> Aaron Teske wrote:
Kinda answered your own question. Either method could work in sci-fi,
but absorbing all energy weapon damage in its area of effect might seem more
believable.
> The shield on the Castellan (the Space Fleet ship you mentioned)
The Black Globe generator in Traveller worked similar to this, except it was
used for individual ships, not an area effect device. If the shields
capacitors absorbed too much energy, then could fail and explode.
> At 12:40 PM 4/5/97 -0500, Mike Miserendino wrote:
> The shield on the Castellan (the Space Fleet ship you mentioned)
and
> exploding if it absorbed too much. A two-edged sword, and all that.
GDWs Black Globe Generator is a direct rip off of the Langston Field in Mote
In God's Eye universe, along with a number of other things. The only reason
they didn't sue is it wasn't worth the money and in the long run may have
actually helped sales. So there is no bone to pick, just remember where the
original idea came from... Phil P.
> At 04:15 PM 4/6/97 PDT, Phil Pournelle wrote:
> GDWs Black Globe Generator is a direct rip off of the Langston Field in
I thought the reason they didn't sue was because you can't sue over an idea
(well, actually you can sue over almost anything; you just won't win). You can
patent an invention, you can trademark the name of an idea, you have copyright
over the explicit expression of an idea, but you do not have copyright over
the idea itself. If they trademarked the term "Langston Field" and GDW had
CALLED it a Langston Black Globe, or some such thing, then it would have been
actionable. If GDW called it a Langston Field generator, they might have been
sued over copyright infringement (except, as Phil pointed out, it isn't worth
the money).
If you could sue over an idea, then Isaac Asimov could have sued Rodenberry
for the idea of a sentient robot (Data). For that matter, Fritz Lang could
have sued Asimov for robots in general, and the orignal "creator" of the idea
of an automatron (French? German? could find out if anyone REALLY wanted to
know) could have sued Lang.
Actually, it's not 100% true that you can't sue over an idea. There have been
cases where people have had an idea, someone stole the idea and made it fact,
and the original inventor sued successfully. Some Canadian trivia: Tim Horton
(hockey player, and founder of the Tim Hortons donut chain) came up with the
idea for Tim Bits (called donut holes by other chains; essentially little
donut chunks). Two years after he died, his partner introduced them as his own
invention and tried to lock out Horton's widow from collecting any royalties
on Tim Bit sales. She sued claiming her husband had the idea first; the
partner lost. The difference between the two may seem somewhat vague (and it
is). That's why there are so many lawyers in the world.
This message is off topic, but I think it's justified. First, it reinforces
the fact that Jon can freely use ideas discussed here without fear of
copyright infringement. Second, there are a lot of misconceptions, with regard
to copyright, on the internet. This is one of my "buttons" and I'm just trying
to clear up some of those misconceptions.
> Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
No bone previuously picked. GDW's version was stated was for what it is,
not where the "so-called" original idea came from. Curious, but how do
know where the first idea came from? At times people have derived similar
ideas without knowing anything about the other's existence. If anything, and
the idea was borrowed, then I would look at it as a complement to the original
creator, not a rip-off. Many times in my industry, I have seen other
software developers try to duplicate products\technologies that we were
first to introduce. I take this as a compliment and it shows that we are
innovators as well as making something people obviously want.