Question Is there any compelling reason to keep both the distance and
time convention the same? Some of the velocity/distance issues would
change substantially if an MU was 1000 km and a turn was, say _five_
minutes. That makes our velocities faster 1 thrust =~.75 g without changing
anything else, essentially. Those wanting to match timeframes with the ground
games would simply do 2 or 3 space combat turns per ground combat turn.
Actually, one of my sticking points for the DS2/FT interface is that 1
turn be the same length in both systems. This allows simultaneous play to be
resolved in a much better fashion, and gives a better feel. I also like
the 15 min space turn - it goes more towards sub combat than the
fighters-in-space feel (which has it's place, but not in my FT games).
Low
thrusts don't bother me - they work fine for either straight FT (hey,
it's
a reactionless drive - I don't *care* how inefficient it is) or Low Tech
FT
(this is what you got - now fly it, sailor). The 7500km/15 min setup is
a
little better - most planets are on-table, and you're talking about some
hefty boosts in the smaller ships - 4 gs is nothing to sneeze at (and
when
your fighters boost at 24 gs - yikes). You want those compensators to
avoid the 'Flattened Crew Syndrome'. We're not up to the Star Trek 'Chunky
Salsa' problem, but FT ships don't go from rest to 0.5c in seconds. But
back to the original position, it's also far more elegant to have a 1:1
space/ground turn ratio; situations can be resolved simultaneously, in a
much easier fashion.
Noah
[quoted original message omitted]
> From Noah Doyle [nvdoyle@midlink.com]:
> Actually, one of my sticking points for the DS2/FT interface is that 1
Low
> thrusts don't bother me - they work fine for either straight FT (hey,
But
> back to the original position, it's also far more elegant to have a 1:1
Hm. I don't play the ground games, so for me the compatability is secondary. I
threw it in since, if you wanted to change the space timescale only, you could
without much disruption of the ground
game. In fact a 3 space turn-one ground turn reflects a more realistic,
I think, description of the relative speed of the respective combat types. You
can see the big furball up in high orbit raging, with ships erupting and
careening, then "Meanwhile, on the planet..." we see troops creeping through
the underbrush or city streets with the occasional assault (why am I thinking
of the climactic battle of The Return of the Jedi?. Perish the thought.).
Taking space combat alone, I like the 1MU=1 1000 km (It's less improbable for
a heavy beam to reach 36000 km than more than halfway to the moon), but the
thrusts are better if the turn is 5 minutes. That way a thrust 8 corvette or
courier can pull 6 G's if it needs to, and a hulking thrust 2 DN can vibrate
the deck plates at 1.5 G. It would probably require a blackout roll (1 in 6)
for pilots of fighters that exceed some high G threshold (Failure results in
figher
out of comission for 1-6
turns). I think the space combat environment should have a unique feel
_between_ 'fighters in
space,' 'wet-navy,' and 'sub combat.' Leave sub combat for the subs! :-]
> ---- Noam wrote:
the renowned but highly tricky naval combat 'simulation' (it's only a
game if it's fun :-) Harpoon uses turns which are (if i remember right)
about 30 *seconds* long; it has a 15-minute turn for when the ships are
out of engagement range, but when the shooting starts it goes to a
really short scale since this is the timescale for modern naval combat -
you might only have a couple of minutes to detect, lock on to and engage (with
three layers of weapons) an incoming missile; i always assumed that space
combat would be even quicker.
for instance: my thrust 4 battleship, turning with thrust 2, takes 3
turns to turn 180 degrees (vanilla movement - FT 2nd edn, cinematic, no
frills). on a 15-minute scale, this is 45 minutes! i know supertankers
take three miles to stop etc, but this is ridiculous!
ok, so maybe a game based on a 15-minute turn would work (we don't need
Harpoon's pathological obsession with detail, although we still do have
missiles meandering about for multiple turns), but it would have totally
different maneuver rules ("ok, turn 7 - my superdreadnought turns 120
degrees to port...").
however: fighters. with a 30-second turn, we are talking about a carrier
launching 2 groups = 12 spacecraft in 30 seconds, which is 2.5 seconds per
launch; whilst realists amongst us may balk at this, just think B5,
battlestar galactica, etc - they get their fighters out in no time.
hope this isn't too wrong,
The bit about Harpoon is true, but it misses a few things. First, naval
combat consists of 3 VERY different travel media: Air, Surface and Subsurface.
The difference in speeds and movement styles is radical
(AIR:
500 knts+, sharp turns; Surface:30 knts, medium turns; Sub: 10 knts,
slow turns). The speed of missiles in respect to target is also phenomenal
(1000+ knts v. 30 knts). Space units all work by the same principles,
and tend to have similar movement styles. Space combat in FT probably consists
of a lot of firing through a 15 min turn, to acheive just a few hits -
ships are small & manuverable, space is big and empty. Fighters probably
launch from the carrier form up, and then receive orders from flight control.
I can see getting a few groups out and ready to go taking a while.
Noah
[quoted original message omitted]