Hi, all.
I read in the newspaper today about Canada's attempts to get a Russian Squall
torpedo. This got me thinking about yet another project I really don't have
time for but will go for anyway.
I got thinking of playing a Full Thrust game based inside a gas giant's
atmosphere or as a futuristic submarine game.
Note that my ideas aren't necessarily to use FT starships in the atmosphere of
a gas giant. The idea is to use FT mechanics, and the fact that FT doesn't
have a REAL scale (funny how no seems to have tried to use FT to represent
gunboat and fighter games...), to try a game that exists in a fluid (gas or
liquid).
The concept is that a ship will be somewhat buoyant. The sensors are
sufficient that nothing is "invisible" as it is today. Most of today's
submarine weapons are based on the fact that you can't easily see your
opponent without giving away your own position. My concept is more like FT
ships, with the fluid rendered essentially transparent by modern
sensors. I have some ideas for "depth/altitude". Ships would be
relatively small. A heavy cruiser would represent something akin to a modern
attack sub.
I haven't thought about the following: is this set in the GZG universe
(probably not), is there gravitic technology (probably limited), will weapons
have upper and lower arcs as well as the six "around" arcs (probably, but not
sure how to handle it).
So, what do you think the effects would be on the various ship systems (FB1
and FB2) when operating in a fluid? What systems make sense in this
environment (should beams be allowed, or would they be defracted by the fluid?
shoudl fighters be allowed, or are the ships too small for fighters to
represent anything?).
Here is a set of first thoughts:
Altitude - Simple, like in Sky Galleons of Mars. 5 altitudes. Each
altitude difference adds so many inches to the distance (yes, not realistic,
but simple). I think I may have a way for things like beam weapons to sit in
an "upper" arc or "lower" arc. Not sure how to "cost" this, other than perhaps
the arc point cost should be half normal.
Movement - I could run this as a naval game. I have a concept in mind
already where ships would have a maximum speed and maximum acceleration. Is
this necessary, or would a vector game work if the "fluid" had it's own
modifier on the vector? This is a neat concept, actually, and lets certain
"altitudes" be faster than others. For instance, the uppermost level could
subtract 1 from movement rate, while the lowest subtracts 5 (a vessel would
need thrust 6 to even move down there).
Sinking - I'm not sure how "buoyancy" will work, other than perhaps as a
critical core system. If a ship loses hull integrity, starts to flood, starts
to "slide backwards", or what have you, it can drop too low and crack.
Hull Integrity - Different hull strengths can withstand different
altitudes?
FTL - Uh, no. No FTL movement.
Beams - Beams would remain relatively the same. They are already
adversely affected by range.
Pulse Torps - Use as a "fire and forget" torpedo? I don't think there's
any system in FT akin to the modern wire-guided torpedo. Should "depth"
affect their range?
Fighters - I can't really see using fighters, though I've been
considering a weapon that is a cross between a fighter squadron and a
submunition pack.
SMLs - These seem to be almost like depth charges or flak. I'm thinking
that their movement would be affected by "depth".
PDS - Not exactly something you find on submarines, but is there any
reason they wouldn't be used in this kind of futuristic environment?
Phalon armour - I was thinking of using this to represent double and
triple hulls.
I've got all sorts of ideas percolating right now. For instance, a torpedo
would maybe be something more like an MT missile. I'm looking for concepts and
ideas. The game would play very much like FT, but hopefully different enough
to be interesting.
So, all concepts and comments are very much welcome!
> Allan Goodall wrote:
IIRC, Brendan? has a fighter game in FT. There's also another one on the
net--I don't recall the URL unfortunately.
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
AGoodall said
> I haven't thought about the following: is this set in the GZG universe
Let them be six-arc weapons as usual for FB1, but have the arcs be Fore,
Aft, Stbd, Port, Dorsal, Ventral.
> Sinking - I'm not sure how "buoyancy" will work, other than perhaps as
Maintain a minimum speed or start sinking?
> Pulse Torps - Use as a "fire and forget" torpedo? I don't think
affect their range?
If depth affects speed, then yes, you're having to shove more mass aside as
you move
> Fighters - I can't really see using fighters, though I've been
I'm missing something here--you're saying fighters in an atmosphere
aren't realistic? Oh wait, you're one of those
aliens-pretending-to-be-Canadian,
Not true (sort of)-I just haven't posted it. I used FT rules to do a
Rebel Fighters vs Star Destroyers scenario last year. The Rebel and Imperial
fighters had stats like corvettes (even repair--since the droids seem to
do that) and the Star Destroyers were static (assumption was that the fighters
were so much more agile that the destroyers "might as well be standing still")
but packed a lot of firepower. Interesting game, but needed some
balancing after the first playtest--and since I no longer have access to
the really big star destroyers used...
Well, it'll be a while before I do any more with this one.
Rob
[quoted original message omitted]
> "Robert W. Hofrichter" wrote:
> Not true (sort of)-I just haven't posted it. I used FT rules to do a
When I first started playing FT, we played using Micro Machines (the various
SW fighters). I remember many a battle between the Empire and the Rebels.
Can't recall the actual size of ship, since we played that under FT2nd, not
FB1 rules, but I do know that the ships were armed with 'B' Batteries. The
rebel fighters had screens, while the TIE fighters were smaller but quicker.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:40:02 -0600, "Mark A. Siefert"
<siefertma@netzero.net> wrote:
> This reminded me of I link I rediscovered while upgrading the UFTWWWP.
Thanks, Mark!
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:10:00 -0500, "Chris DeBoe"
<LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET> wrote:
> Let them be six-arc weapons as usual for FB1, but have the arcs be
That's a good idea!
> Maintain a minimum speed or start sinking?
I thought about that. It depends on whether or not there is a ballast system
on the vessel.
> I'm missing something here--you're saying fighters in an atmosphere
*L* Worse. I'm an
alien-pretending-to-be-Scots-pretending-to-be-Canadian. I'm
one of the few dual citizens on the list. *S*
What I meant was that if the ships are considered to be fairly small compared
to FT ships, fighters would be very tiny, say no more than a metre or two in
size. So, fighters wouldn't be "fighters". That's why I thought that they
probably wouldn't be used. The same would happen in a fighter game of FT,
where a fighter is represented by, say, a mass 10 ship.
> >Maintain a minimum speed or start sinking?
Why? (think "airplane" here--do they need ballast?)
> >I'm missing something here--you're saying fighters in an atmosphere
> *L* Worse. I'm an
I think "Scots" and "alien" overlap, don't they?
> What I meant was that if the ships are considered to be fairly small
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:34:21 -0800, "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> Why? (think "airplane" here--do they need ballast?)
Depends on the thickness of the fluid and the model I'm using. If it's fairly
thin, you need Bernoulli's principle (and forward motion, ala aircraft) to
keep the craft aloft. If I use a submarine, or an airship, model you need
ballast.
> I think "Scots" and "alien" overlap, don't they?
Actually, no! I have a quote from a Canadian comedy TV show that shows that
Scots and aliens ARE different. It was the score for a soccer game. "Once
again, the final score, Alien Overlords, 22,000. Scotland, zip!" (It's
Canadian show... they should have said, "Alien Overlords, 22,000. Scotland,
nil."*G*
> Not enough room on a gas giant for you, eh?
Well... Okay, so I guess I could keep the vessels bigger. But my idea was to
have them a bit smaller than FT.
Allan rebutted to my comments:
> >Why? (think "airplane" here--do they need ballast?)
Okay, I see what you're saying. You wouldn't need ballast "to stay afloat" but
you could perhaps pump in atmosphere to change the craft's overall density and
thus altitude.
> >I think "Scots" and "alien" overlap, don't they?
"Once
> again, the final score, Alien Overlords, 22,000. Scotland, zip!"
Ah, but that's a *different* batch of aliens, you see. Besides,
Canadians is aliens too--my wife is a Canadian and it says right here
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> Here is a set of first thoughts:
If your fluid has any density and viscosity to speak of, the "vector modifier"
will depend to a very high degree on the shape of the ship
and its facing relative to its course - so much so that you'll
effectively end up with something which looks very similar to
Cinematic. Unless, of course, your ships are spherical :-/
Yes, today's 4th-generation fighters can point their noses in
directions other than the one they are flying, but only for very short
periods; you get the same effect by allowing "fixed-forward" weapons to
fire in the entire (F) arc.
> Beams - Beams would remain relatively the same. They are already
Sounds more like some variant of MT missiles than P-torps, no?
> Fighters - I can't really see using fighters, though I've been
> From your replies to Laserlight, I'd say that you're talking about
> PDS - Not exactly something you find on submarines, but is there any
Anti-torpedo torpedoes are under development...
Later,
Actually all aircraft have had this ability -- it's called rudder
control and was absoltely necessary in WWII. The degree at which they could do
this was limited by shape, air stream, etc.
[quoted original message omitted]
Peter Mancini wrote in a formatted post::
> Yes, today's 4th-generation fighters can point their noses in
Sure. But today's 4th-generation aircraft improve this ability by a few
orders of magnitude or so...
Later,
This should give you a few ideas, it's actually SG/DS vertically
integrated into FT.
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/sg/dogfight.htm
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[Pirates] Dame Captain Washalot
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
G'day guys,
> UCUVs are under development (may be in service already,
A lot of these kind of things are becoming popular in marine science, the
older and deep diving ones are fairly bulky and slow, but those being made for
shallow depths are fast and furious and you can easily imagine them turning
into something that could dogfight.... mind you these discussions happen after
a long day tagging fish and quite a few beers;)
Cheers
Beth
Well one order of magnitude would be 40 degrees. That is impressive. I haven't
kept up on air craft design since the very late 80's.
--Peter
[quoted original message omitted]
> Peter Mancini wrote:
> Well one order of magnitude would be 40 degrees.
OK, slight exaggeration on my part :-) The latest Russian fighters can
do "over 30 degrees for considerable lengths of time". I don't know
what the Raptor or JSF are/will be capable of, but wouldn't be
surprised if they fall in that area as well.
Regards,
Why is this important apart from Dogfighting? Aren't missles much better than
they were during Viet Nam? Or have defenses gotten even better?
--Peter
[quoted original message omitted]
> Peter Mancini wrote:
> Why is this important apart from Dogfighting? Aren't missles much
AAMs are much better today than in the 'Nam, but so are the defences.
One important factor is how missiles are launched. Many 3rd-generation
fighters still need to point their aircraft fairly directly towards
their would-be victims in order to get a target lock; aerial acrobatics
is one way to get around this. There are other ways too, of course <g>
Regards,
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just have the missiles mounted on drop down brackets
that allowed them to rotate? It seems a lot of work and requires a lot of
training to get the entire aircraft to do something unusual like massive
attitutde changes.? Not that I don't think it is neat, I just wonder if there
is an easier way.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Peter Mancini wrote:
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to just have the missiles mounted on drop >down
[than to let the entire aircraft fly sideways for a while]
I strongly doubt it, since so many advanced aircraft can fly sideways
but none of them have the kind of hardpoints you describe :-/ Even the
F22 and JSF only lower their missiles far enough to clear the internal weapon
bay, but they don't rotate the missiles.
Possible reasons could be:
Drop-down rotating hardpoints would cause considerably more problems
for the avionics computers than "swerving" (or whatever the maneuver should be
called in English) does, quite apart from the increased problems with
structural strength of both hardpoints and missiles.
Even though the overall direction of the air flow is the same close to
a "swerving" aircraft (and its conventionally-mounted missiles) and a
lowered-and-rotated missile, the side forces on the lowered missile are
considerably higher than on the conventionally-mounted one.
But these are only speculations based on what aerodynamics and gas dynamics I
read at the uni. My job was bought a company which builds AAMs half a year or
so ago, but we haven't really merged the organisations yet so I'm still
restricted to so professionally I still only work with ATGMs and LAWs <g>
Regards,
Instead of calling the manuever in "swerving" I would suggest either "induced
yaw" or "attitude skew". Someone pointed out to me that the reason you don't
want to yaw the missile is it now has much increased surface area in the flow
of the air stream and thus needs to be redesigned to compensate.
What is easier, redesigning every missile or one aircraft? :-\
On an unrelated note, how much computing power are in ATGM's these days?
> From a hacker point of view I have found that even mundane things like
> Peter Mancini wrote:
> Instead of calling the manuever in "swerving" I would suggest either
Thanks! Knew I should've known it, but I could only remember the
Swedish term :-(
> Someone pointed out to me that the reason you don't want to yaw the
Part of the structural integrity problems I talked about earlier,
yes...
> What is easier, redesigning every missile or one aircraft? :-\
Depends. If you want to keep all your old missiles, it's easier to give the
new aircraft new acrobatic abilities, but *do* you want to keep the old
missiles?
You'll want to replace their warheads and engines eventually (the propellants
and explosives change characteristics in storage), and you'll definitely want
to replace much of their electronics and avionics (since there's much more
powerful stuff available now)... all that remains is the basic hull structure,
and that's by far the least expensive part of the entire missile...
...so if the "rotating hardpoint" concept is workable with today's
technology, why don't even the "next-generation" aircraft like F22, JSF
or Typhoon which are designed to use next-generation missiles (which
*could* be designed to survive yaw-airstream-induced stresses) use it?
> On an unrelated note, how much computing power are in ATGM's >these
"I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" :-(
It really depends on what weapon you're looking at. The Strix mortar
round (not an ATGM of course, but still a fire-and-forget precision
weapon) can be quite seriously programmed on launch; some weapons use
hardwired circuits instead (so you can't reprogram them except by replacing
the electronics). But I can safely say that they're usually
more capable than a 4-function calculator <g>
Later,
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
Actually the rotating missile mounts wouldn't be required because the latest
close range air to air missiles (eg; israeli made 'Python' AAM) are extremely
agile and when coupled with a helmet mounted sight can engage any aircraft
(target) within the pilot's field of view. (I think the term is
WVR; within visual range).
I believe west got it's first practical experience with this new generation
of AAM was a test with the luftwaffe's MiG-29s (gained after
re-unification), the MiG-29s proved to be a big eye opener, armed with
the latest generation soviet AAM and using helmet mounted sights allowed the
MiG-29 pilots to engage a target anywhere within their field of vision
regardless of in what direction the aircraft (and it's missiles) were
pointing. This was an advantage the 'western' pilots lacked still having to
manoeuvre to point their missiles at the target. BUT beyond close quarters
things were different (the term is BVR; beyond visual range, I think)
'western' doctrine and tactics tipped the balance against the MiG-29s.
> agoodall@canada.com wrote:
> Hi, all.
this, other than perhaps the arc point cost should be half normal.
> [quoted text omitted]
How about just costing it as a "normal 1 arc". Then you wouldn't have to
figure out all the costs...
> Movement - I could run this as a naval game. I have a concept in mind
Is this necessary, or would a vector game work if the "fluid" had it's own
modifier on the vector? This is a neat concept, actually, and lets certain
"altitudes" be faster than others. For instance, the uppermost level could
subtract 1 from movement rate, while the lowest subtracts 5 (a vessel would
need thrust 6 to even move down there).
> [quoted text omitted]
Sounds good. Sleeker hulls would be faster than simple boxy ones. Maybe set it
up like the hull strengths or something.
> Sinking - I'm not sure how "buoyancy" will work, other than perhaps as
Cool. Any ship that drops off the bottom of the depth chart is squashed. Maybe
have ships drop one level lower for each hit row crossed off.
> [quoted text omitted]
> FTL - Uh, no. No FTL movement.
Awwww! :-)
> Beams - Beams would remain relatively the same. They are already
That would be consistant with everything else.
> Fighters - I can't really see using fighters, though I've been
A small one-man sub. Give it better speed, light weapons, and a low
cost, great for local defense of instalations/ect. These were also in
use on "SeaQuest". They were called "Snub fighers" or "Sub-fighters".
Something like that.
> SMLs - These seem to be almost like depth charges or flak. I'm
On the show "Seaquest" they had "intercepts". It was a torpedo interception
torpedo. They fired out the Seaquest's torpedo tubes.
> Phalon armour - I was thinking of using this to represent double and
You may also want to look at:
AquaZone
http://www.chem.kuleuven.ac.be/research/fysanal/members/bv/GAMES/AQUAZON
E/aq
uap.html