A quick question regarding SML`s. I want to use a SML with limited arcs (or
more limited than present), and was wondering if mass 2 for a 2 arc lancher,
and mass 1 for a 1 arc launcher sounds reasonable? (at normal x3 cost).
Also, in a campain, how would you people work the building rule to prevent
pure fighter forces (ie-fighters used as offence, with the carriers
withdrawing and picking up new fighters at cheaper cost than a starship?),
or using "stingboats/LAC`s" with FTL tugs (which for the same mass are
cheaper than a normal FTL warship, if the tug withdraws/is reuseable?).
On Friday, June 15, 2001 3:51 PM, Bif Smith
[SMTP:bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk]
wrote:
> A quick question regarding SML`s. I want to use a SML with limited
It would probably make them too cheap in mass.
> Also, in a campain, how would you people work the building rule to
Force the carriers to stay on the table. If they FTL away, any squadrons from
that carrier automatically surrender. Same with the tugs. Using carriers and
tugs may be useful, but if you manage to engage them, in the long term, that
player loses. You could possibly arrange house rules for sneak attacks on
their carriers and tugs to force combat upon them. With my campaign rules, I
also added in an extra cost for replacement pilots. You get 9 pilots per
squadron to start and must pay 10 points per replacement pilot. Losing pilots
can get expensive fast.
'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
IIRC Most arcs are about 1/4 mass of a 1 arc launcher (P-Torps,
Beams).
So, you would have a mass 1.5 launcher (no arcs) and need to add.5 per arc
(round up). That gives you: Arcs Mass
1 2
2 3
3 3
- ---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Bif Smith
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:51 AM
To: full thrust
Subject: [FT]SML question
A quick question regarding SML`s. I want to use a SML with limited arcs (or
more limited than present), and was wondering if mass 2 for a 2 arc lancher,
and mass 1 for a 1 arc launcher sounds reasonable? (at normal x3 cost).
[snip]
BIF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOynwJ9OVrCdNYgyBEQKh/QCfVSrgmC0VO2uI/j/sa0dACQHAk5YAn2hu
e9utby7YWfu73XUufK8e3pfO =ou74
> On 15-Jun-01 at 01:49, Bif Smith (bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:
With the fighters we just rule that they are so short range that if the
carrier withdraws the fighters surrender. Of course we are
playing human-human and assume reasonable prisoner exchange.
As for the LAC's, let the chips fall where they may. We do roll a chance for
an intercept of the tug though.:)
> Also, in a campaign, how would you people work the building rule to
My completely off the cuff answer is to make them more economically expensive
(i.e.. more crews) pr just limit the number of crews that you can
replace/build more of per turn. Also perhaps have *all* fighter crews
that are "replaced" start off as Turkeys and make them gain experience after
the campaign starts.
Also make the replacement take *time*, either the fighters are sitting on
forward base where the supplies can be attacked or captured, or they are
sitting in a protected base at the rear that the carrier is going to have to
return to in order to stock, and then return to the front.
Or they are transported via freighter or some such to the front...commerce
raiding anyone?
Keep in mind that the Tug becomes and even more tempting target in a campaign
game because if you kill it, you have killed their ability to move on a
strategic level. That and I would guess that if you're in deep space and you
kill the tug... Why the heck stick around? Demand surrender and if they don't
leave. The life support systems on a LAC are probably less extensive that
those on a starship...
> Bif Smith wrote:
> A quick question regarding SML`s. I want to use a SML with limited
If you have FB2, encourage someone to build a Kra'Vak fleet. The Kra'Vak can
build a slightly off-balanced force that is not too bad against a fleet
with niether SM's nor fighters (but it will be a little undergunned) that will
do to
the the pure fighter/carrier fleet what the pure fighter/carrier fleet
does to
FB1 fleets. A Kra'Vak fleet intended to battle a pure fighter/carrier
fleet (large numbers of small ships with MKP's and scatterguns) can defeat the
pure
fighter/carrier force while being seriously outnumbered in point value.
You also have to look at the non-combat, campaign implications. Fighter
pilots take a long time to train, and they can only learn by doing.
Maintaining proficiency will require time spent in a fighter. Introduce a time
lag between when a pilot is ordered, and when it arrives. The pilot will need
a fighter for
the whole time that he/she/it is in training, and these fighters will
have to be based somewhere. All of this costs money. If it takes six turns to
produce a pilot, and the pure carrier force is replacing 15% of his fighters a
turn, then there are almost as many pilots in training as there are serving on
carriers. Starship crew replacement faces similar problems, but they are all
less severe. Unlike wet navies, damage control in space does not involve
keeping water out,
and fires are easy to prevent/extinguish (unless there is a VIP that can
insist on being in a pressurised compartment during a battle). The tasks are
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 16-Jun-01 at 01:52, Bif Smith (bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:
> > > With the fighters we just rule that they are so short range that
The other problem is rather psychological. Where do you find all these
highly-skilled pilots for suicide mission after suicide mission? If they
have no tug *they can't run away*...
This also pre-supposes that a LAC/Stingship has at least 3 days of
supplies
on board (and probably more like 7+ to account for maneuvering time
etc.)
If were are going to look at "reality" then you might want to examine the
issues behind why *we* don't have a Navy full of PT boats for assault and
patrol purposes... ;-)
> Bif Smith wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
The only problem is if the system is defended by some deep space interceptors
(high thrust cruisers intended for just this sort of thing, only works in
vector), mass 50, thrust 10, FTL, hull integrity 10, single arc class-4
beam, FC, and a pds. They jump out towards the stingboats after the stingboats
have started decelerating, and are very obvious. If they cannot destroy all of
the stingboats before the attack, they wait for the tug outside the weapons
range of the stingboats. Unless the sting boats all have a thrust of at least
10 (which makes them extremely fragile, or nearly weaponless [if stingboats
are known for 10 thrust, the interceptor is a fragile mass 100 BC with a MD of
14, but otherwise identical]), the tug always comes under attack at the
pick-up
point. Due to the inherent inaccurracies of the jump, the tug must announce
its presence, so the stingboats can find it. Once the interceptors detect the
tug, the interceptors jump directly there. The deep space interceptors will
also meet the stingboats a good distance away from their target (the
stingboats are decelerating all the way at max thrust, they WILL be noticed),
so unless they can engage the interceptors, they will not even make it to the
target (one unanswered die of beam fire will take a long time to destroy a
horde of stingboats, but the interceptor has all day).
When ferrying attacks to systems that are expected to be heavily defended, the
tug expects to be assaulted at the rally point. The only way to avoid it is to
> At 9:46 AM -0500 6/16/01, David Rodemaker wrote:
We (the US and the USN) don't fight in our own littoral waters. We fight in
other people's space. We project power. Small combatants are useful in your
own littoral. The US does have 13 Cyclone class coastal combatants. They are
operated for the SEALs or by Coast Guard
Detachements. (http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/littoral.htm#pc)
Other navies have a larger proportion of vessels for such duties.
Russia http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/russia/littoral.htm#patr
The UK http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/europe/uk.htm#5
Italy http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/europe/italy.htm#6
In some cases its all they have. Take Israel for example...
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/mideast/israel.htm#1
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> At 9:46 AM -0500 6/16/01, David Rodemaker wrote:
Non-FTL vessels are not similar in role to coastal combatants, they more
closely resemble towed artillery. They can only usefully defend targets within
six hours (the minimum time between jumps) of their current location
> At 03:35 PM 6/17/01 -0400, Ryan wrote:
Although it may be worth noting that one reason behind the switch from Seawolf
to Virginia is to redesign for increased littoral warfare; the
Seawolf is cold war-style boomer hunting, the Virginia is supposed to be
more flexible. (Though I think the 3rd Seawolf is going to the SEALs for
specops.)
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:04:34 -0400, Richard and Emily Bell
> <rlbell@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Due to the inherent inaccurracies of the jump, the tug must announce
Unless I'm missing something, why is the tug unable to jump to the stingboats
(because of inaccuracies during the jump) but the interceptors can jump on the
tug without the same inaccuracies?
I wouldn't do this, anyway. I would have a pre-arranged drop off point
picked out. The tug would FTL to that point. If it misses the point due to
jump inaccuracies, it would move in real space to that point. The stingboats
would go to that point in space for pick up, probably via an indirect route,
if possible.
> (one
Well, not really. At FT's de facto scale, even a thrust 4 vessel can cross the
distance from the Earth to the moon in 4 hours. If FTL ships don't have an
accuracy of greater than 500,000 km, then your FTL interceptors have a big
problem.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:46:09 -0500, "David Rodemaker" <dar@horusinc.com>
wrote:
> If were are going to look at "reality" then you might want to examine
Well, if we're looking at "reality", by the time humanity can handle FTL it
should be able to program an AI routine for running strike ships. But, then
again, I'm a proponent of strong AI. *S*
[quoted original message omitted]
> >If were are going to look at "reality" then you might want to examine
<Devil's Advocate hat on>
Why? (Though I tend to agree with you)
Someone else made the comment that by the time of FT everything would be
harder hitting, more accurate, whatever.
I doubt it. Look at the size of the FT ships and tell me that a nice sized
nuke wouldn't just toast the whole thing on a direct hit. My take on the FT
universe is that things actually hit less often than modern day (see someone
else's comments on hit ratio and counter measures) and due to the technology
needed to insure a decent range and strike capability in space the damage
produced is not much worse than you would have with big 18" guns on the high
seas.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:04:34 -0400, Richard and Emily Bell
The tug has just jumped to the rally point, it will be some time before it is
capable of jumping again.
> I wouldn't do this, anyway. I would have a pre-arranged drop off point
This still does not handle the problem of the stingboats being followed, and
even restricted to real space, if the interceptor outperforms the stingboat,
it will reach the tug first. The tug will probably announce its presence
anyways, because, if it badly misses the rally point, the stingboats would
rather not announce the rally point's location by stopping to wait.
> > (one
The accuracy is probably a function of how accurately the navigator knows two
things, where the ship is, and where it desires to go. There will also be an
absolute error of some sort. Insystem, the relative errors must not be too
great,
or jumps of a light-year, or more, are a real problem. The locals can
set up a SSPS satellite system to give them nearly exact positioning info. If
military GPS is good for one part in a million, a solar system position system
is good for within thousands of kilometers. The absolute inaccuracy is comes
from the nature of jump engines, but if a thrust 4 can go from the Earth to
the moon in 4 hours, it takes the thrust 10 vessel less than two.
I was also responding to an article that said that the stingboats were dropped
a few days travel from the target (should be at least a few light-hours
distant). To prevent the tug from being attacked before it jumps to safety, it
drops the stingboats several AU away from the target (an AU is only sixteen
light-minutes,
approximately), so the interceptors are either sniping at the tug, or spending
all day sniping at stingboats.
> Bif Smith wrote:
> This also asumes there is no limit how deep into the gravity well of
It cannot be that restrictive a limit, or some things become difficult. Thrust
2 must be practical for a merchant (the sample cargo ships all have thrust 2),
so the time to get far enough out of the star's gravity well (and back in, on
the return trip)can not be an overly significant amount of the total trip
time. If it takes several weeks to get to the jump threshold (at thrust 2) and
only a few days to get to the destination star, it would be unusual to see a
cargo ship with less than thrust 10. The capital cost, and loss of cargo space
is
unimportant, it gets to the jump threshold in only a twenty-fifth of the
time,
> At 7:08 AM +0100 6/18/01, Bif Smith wrote:
This is how I've held the theories to be. ie they are "system" defense ships.
Not orbit or planetary defense ships. FTL transitions are handled on the very
edge of space. The ecliptic is easier to reach due to places along the way
that act in your benefit depending on the course. Going off of the ecliptic is
just as long a trip. The system primary (and other stars) have a spherical
grav well remember.
> At 10:11 PM -0400 6/17/01, Aaron Teske wrote:
Ahh, but again, its for operations on someone else's littoral.
Small combatants tend to have a hard time self deploying to the other side of
the Ocean. They can do it, but they aren't as nearly fast or seaworthy.
> At 7:41 AM -0400 6/18/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
Frankly if we were able to develop a system for larger system wide
engagements, (hundreds of square tables (table being a subjective
measurement)), then I'd have an different tactic in mind for small
ships. FTL way off the detection range of the ships/outposts in the
target system and move in under normal drives and a pretty low thrust (just
like in Honor Harrington). Perhaps several days off of the FTL limit and
launch the smaller ships closer in (or even from the initial FTL point. The
pickup point would be somewhere else, but pre arranged). The tug would then
make a move to that location depending on the time. The pickup vessel could
also be separate and would be ready there already too.
> > This also asumes there is no limit how deep into the gravity well of
It depends upon the profitability more than the turnaround time. Otherwise
everything would ship via Concord and Hydroplane <g>
However you could also move to the old Traveler model and have a safe jump
limit (past 100 diameters) and the dangerous inner ring (10-100
diameters) and the "only if you want to die" (within 10 diameters) model. I
tend to like this one somewhat.
> At 4:37 PM -0400 6/18/01, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
Remember there are fast cargo ships, slow cargo ships and things in between.
The faster ships of old were liners and banana ships. Everything else tended
to be slower and more conservative. Bulk carriers aren't going to go that fast
from inside to the outside anyhow.
Being able to FTL into systems makes system defense pretty much hopeless.
I sat down and calculated the time it would take to get from One side of the
NAC to the other due to a thread on the Atlanta FT list...
From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Fri Apr 13, 2001 3:08 pm
Subject: Re: [fullthrustgroup] Star Maps and Star Nation locations...
The longest successful jump was 7 Light years, that was with a specialized
scientific research craft. That ship tried a longer jump and never returned.
Figure a bit over a Parsec (1 Parsec is = 3.3 Light Years) is about the
standard for civil shipping 4 LY in other words. Military grade FTL drives are
a bit better, put them at 5 LY. Anything further is too risky and isn't really
done unless you have a fast courier. Also included is recharge time between
one FTL hop and another. ~6 hours is what the book says (I was recalling an
hour, sorry...).
Some of these systems are right at or under a parsec. So a quick jump from one
to the other is easy. A long trip from
one side of the NAC Mu Arae (9:-3:-2) to GJ 1289 (-2:7:-3)
is about 11.7 parsecs or 396 Light years. If we can do that in 4 LY hops we
are talking about 99 hops and probably about 594 hours given no drive failures
or other problems. That comes out to 25 days worth of travel.
Merchant vessels with passengers tend to only do their FTL hops at night when
the passengers are sleeping since it does take a bit out of you. The books
describe it as a very sickening feeling.
The 25 days worth of travel is about right for what you'd expect for such a
scale on the map. It does make for a good ability to move around, however, its
not a quick thing.
What it means for any campaign is that Big nations like the
NAC/ESU/NSL/FSE is that a large portion of their forces are
spread out. Fighting them is going to be a daunting task unless they are tied
down with some other major conflict. You don't want to fight a major nation if
they can bring their entire weight of force against you.
Just like the US fighting great Britain during the war of 1812. We weren't
close to challenging their dominance of the Atlantic or the Carribean, we were
able to sting them and make them unhappy with fighting us when they were
concerned about the Continental war. We had to make it come to an end before
they finished with the Frogs and Napoleon.
> The preponderance of thrust 2 merchants strongly implies that it only
Well, given they can continually thrust the whole way and don't have to bring
velocity to Zero to FTL, I don't see it taking more than a day or so to reach
the FTL Limit. Get fancy with your final jumps and you can conserve that
velocity on the other eventual end of all of your jumps.
> At 04:59 PM 6/18/01 -0400, Ryan wrote:
> Seawolf to Virginia is to redesign for increased littoral warfare; the
> Seawolf is cold war-style boomer hunting, the Virginia is supposed to
Hmm, meant to add in the bit that, while they're more for offshore ops on
someone else's coast, there's no reason they couldn't hang around our own as
well. It's just that, at the moment, there's no operational reason for
them to do so -- even during the Cold War you sent the attack subs out
to find the boomers well before they got that close....
> Small combatants tend to have a hard time self deploying to the other
<grin> That's generally what makes a littoral ship, no? Anything larger
tends to be considered a regular Navy ship...?
> At 8:31 PM -0400 6/18/01, Aaron Teske wrote:
If we're worrying about our Littoral that much (full on combat vs
customs/border patrol) then the cow waste has hit the HVAC system.
> Small combatants tend to have a hard time self deploying to the
Well, the new DD-21 Zumwalts are meant to work in the littoral as
they'll have dedicated shore support weapons. Certainly a sea going ship, but
not exactly a small craft.
http://dd21.crane.navy.mil/dd21.htm
I seem to recall one version of some DD having a well deck, but I may be
mistaken.
Speaking of small craft...There is an excerpt on Janes about a new Russian
FAC..
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jni/jni010614_1_n.shtml
> At 9:05 PM -0400 6/18/01, Ryan M Gill wrote:
You could get a space game out of that concept too.
> I seem to recall one version of some DD having a well deck, but I
A well deck reminds me of a littoral concept described in Naval Inst.
Procedings back in 1999 (that still sounds weird). The concept was for a small
hydrofoil craft, with the ability to semisubmerge and equipped with modular
bays for on deployment reconfiguration. With a stealth design and the hiding
thing, they'd be able to lurk off the coast until a target presents itself.
The bigger amphib ships would be able to service them. It's a very futuristic
concept and a very different type of FAC, but it should work well for extended
operations off someone elses coastline.
here's the issue TOC, with full text for the above article
http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles99/PROweeks.htm (I did
*not* know that Proceedings back issues were online, now we all do)
Speaking of littoral warfare, the same issue (November '99) had an article
(Lt.Col. Stout, USMC) proposing that the USMC build a
twin-engine *prop* plane for the close support role. The author
suggests an updated F7F. They compare well to the Harrier in many important
categories, and use proven technology unlike the JSF VTOL. The main idea is to
get a plane capable of loitering for hours over a
battlefield with four times the ordnance load of an AV-8B. Operating
off the amphib carriers would be a cinch for an F7F. They could even escort
Ospreys
Sadly, this article is not on the USNI website.
> Speaking of small craft...There is an excerpt on Janes about a new
Replacing the Tarantul? I've got a model of a Tarantul class boat sitting
right over 'there'. I've always liked that class.
And I'm crossposting this to NavWarGames, because we're way OT, unless someone
wants to adapt FT for mid 21st century littoral operations.
http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/PRO1999toc.htm#NOV1999
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> At 8:31 PM -0400 6/18/01, Aaron Teske wrote:
Current naval doctrine is all about littoral, and hardly about blue water
(high seas) any more, since the end of the cold war. This seems to apply to
pretty much the whole NATO at least.
Cheers,
From: "David Rodemaker" <dar@horusinc.com>
> The other problem is rather psychological. Where do you find all these
Never needed to, just one suicide mission per pilot ;-)
I grant you that fighters have a high attrition rate. If you count that as
being "pilots lost", I don't see how anyone (except Islamic Fed and possibly
KraVak) could sustain such operations. However, if you count it as "combat
power losses" you could explain it away as "you've expended your disposible
ordinance and countermeasures, the eenmy has figured out your ECM, and your
drones are gone" without necessarily losing all your pilots. Or you could
add "pilot recovery" -- would be a good job for those
> >It cannot be that restrictive a limit, or some things become
Bear in mind that it doesn't take all that much longer to get from A to B in a
thrust 2 vs Thust 10 ship. Picking a nice round number for distance and
setting Thrust 1 at 10m/sec^2, and rather optimistically assuming I'm
doing the math right:
d=1/2 at^2
1,000,000,000m = 1/2 (20m/sec^2) t^2 or 1/2 (100m/sec^2)t^2
t = 10,000 seconds (thrust 2) or 4472 seconds (thrust 10)
> On Mon, 18 June 2001, "David Rodemaker" wrote:
> <Devil's Advocate hat on>
Simple physics. A machine can handle gees far in excess of that handled by a
human. Without a human, and its life support and extraction machinery, the
machine becomes much lighter (thus faster and more efficient).
It's at this point I hear two comments: 1) humans are "unpredictable";
2) gravitational compensators will make g-forces inconsequential.
In answer to 1: humans aren't THAT undpredictable. In fact, a lot of
fields (marketing, social science, polling -- *ahem* --) are based on
that fact. Even if they were unpredictable, you still have the fact that
the machine can physically react faster, with less worry about g-forces,
than the human. Oh, and humans also tend to make mistakes, sometimes grievous
ones.
In answer to 2: an anti-gravity/anti-inertia device, assuming that they
are feasible, will still need to use some form of energy. Unless the device
also manages to break the law of conservation of energy, they will probably
have to expend energy in proportion to the gravity or inertia they are
compensating against. By this argument, it would take less energy to make 25
gees feel like 20 gees than make 25 gees feel like 2 gees. In other words,
being able to handle a greater gee load will still give the machine the edge,
even if it's just in energy expenditure.
This all assumes that a computer program can be designed to fight as
effectively as a human. We'll know if aircraft can be designed that way within
the next 10 to 30 years. This isn't even talking true artificial intelligence.
Proponents of hard AI assume that the human brain is a biological machine, and
that duplicating its abilities is simply a matter of (admittedly vastly
complex) engineering. It would surprise me if something approaching human
intelligence wasn't around in 200 years,
particularly if we've already -- by then -- conquered gravity and the
light barrier.
> --- agoodall@canada.com wrote:
...
> It's at this point I hear two comments: 1) humans
Humans are predictable in the LARGE not the SMALL. In other words, you might
predict how many people will buy crest toothpaste or how many will vote for
candidate A, but you can't predict how I personally will vote. One on one,
predicting how a particular fighter pilot will react will still be tough.
...
> In answer to 2: an anti-gravity/anti-inertia device,
Yes, but it's just possible that such a technology will be sufficient so that
the short pole in the tent would be materials technology (what the actual
fighter structure can stand in G's). In other words, the inertial damper might
be perfectly capable of maintaining the pilot in comfort long past the time
the fighter disintegrates from making a 100g turn.
> This all assumes that a computer program can be
Even if the best fighter pilot is better than the program, all you REALLY have
to do is make the computer as good or better than the AVERAGE fighter pilot.
That might be easier. Instant reaction times possible in a computer may help.
Of course I've read SF stories where the pilots were loaded up with cyberwear
so that their responses were pretty instant too. I've also read stories where
the pilots were "loaded into the hardware" as it were and became the computer.
If we're permitted Star Trek level tech, the fighters
may be sentient computers, as complex and self-aware
as any fighter pilot, only with vast resources of data, tactics, experience
(not all it's own), and the lightning speed possible with a machine. Yikes!
Regardless of what really happens though, I like the romantic notion of the
fighter pilot (possibly
with a silk scarf) flying his viper/x-wing/
whatever through space;
> On Tue, 19 June 2001, David Griffin wrote:
> Humans are predictable in the LARGE not the SMALL.
They are more predictable than they think. It's how so-called "psychics"
work. But, yes, there are a lot of variations in individuals based on
stimulus. In combat, however, there are only a few "right" moves. Fighter
pilots drill and drill in order to react quickly. Reaction time on a fighter
is often more important than doing the unpredictable. It's usually
unpredictable for a reason.
> In other words,
Doesn't work that way. If the ship is falling apart, it's due to forces
exerted on it. Force = mass x acceleration. Given two vessels with the same
gees, for the same force exerted on it you'd need to have both vessels at the
same mass. However, humans require more mass (due to life support systems,
ejection systems, a bigger cockpit, etc.) in their fighter than an unmanned
fighter.
In other words, if the human vessel is going to break up at 100 gees, the
unmanned vessel might not break up until 101 gees, which still gives it an
advantage.
This doesn't even assume that the unmanned fighter requires less dampening of
inertia so could probably get away with a smaller (i.e. less massive) inertial
dampening system...
So, I'm still going to contend that the human-less fighter will win...
> Regardless of what really happens though, I like
Well, the very first time I started an AI thread on this list, that was the
consensus. It certainly makes for more engaging stories. And I have no problem
with that.
It's just that it also introduces a slippery slope. I've seen lots of posts
with people trying to come up with something "realistic" based on what is, at
heart, an unrealistic notion.
The Tuffleyverse is pretty darn unrealistic. On the other hand, it's also a
lot of fun. As such, I'm usually less interested in realism and more
interested in internal consistency.
> --- agoodall@canada.com wrote:
I'm certainly not a fighter pilot, but in the games I've played where you get
the chance to choose what
you do next -- dive, climb, turn sharp, fire a
snap shot, etc. There seem to be a LOT of different choices. I don't think it
would be quite so easy to distill all that in a program.
In Chess at first, we saw computers play badly because they weren't capable of
the sort of neural short circuiting we do in jumping to a conclusion without
working through all the possibilities. But when they got faster and were able
to work through all the possibilities, they didn't need that ability. That
might be possible here too, but I think the game of air combat is a lot more
complicated than chess, so it might take a while to get there. And that
assumes pilots don't get enhanced themselves.
If there are any real ex fighter pilots on the list, maybe they'd like to
comment.
In regards to the inertial dampers, I can see what you're saying. I guess what
would matter is whether the fighter pilot could bring something to the
equation that would be worth the loss in performance.
> > Regardless of what really happens though, I like
I personally like the romantic notion of the pilot sitting at home, collecting
royalties for his contribution to the expert systems, while off in another
star system the wing commander is saying "we lost seven
fighters--uncrate three AttackBobs and four InterceptorFreds and get
them
ready to plug in". Hemoglobin splattered on the canopy is messy.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:04:21 -0700 (PDT), David Griffin
> <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm certainly not a fighter pilot, but in the games
Oh, it won't be easy! That's for sure. But it's a matter of choosing the right
thing to do, or a reasonable thing to do, quickly. I understand that the next
generation of avionics systems (maybe even the state-of-the-art today)
will
be/are capable of not just recovering the plane in the event the pilot
blacks out, but attempt to get the plane into a superior combat position.
> In Chess at first, we saw computers play badly
Well, that's not actually how they work. They have a database of moves that
they search through. They don't do every possible permutation. They try to
achieve a position stored in the database that can't be assailed. In other
words, they have completed games stored in the database, and follow the moves
in those games. If this sounds like "cheating", chess masters for decades have
studied games in order to memorize winning moves.
It's also why no computer opponent has been able to beat a grand master at Go.
Go is simpler, in moves, to chess, but the permutations are far more complex.
It devolves into many games at once, each part of the board being a different
battle.
> In regards to the inertial dampers, I can see what
That's very true.
If we're talking about real life, I agree. If we're talking about a game where
people don't really die, maybe not.
> --- Chris DeBoe <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET> wrote:
> David Rodemaker wrote:
> > > This also asumes there is no limit how deep into the gravity well
Otherwise
> everything would ship via Concord and Hydroplane <g>
The Concord and Ekranoplane (Huge wing-in-ground-effect aircraft that
pretends to be a ship) are plagued by the fact that the ratio of their speed
to cost is more expensive than conventional aircraft and ships. Hydrofoils are
not used to ship cargo because large cargo ships draw a lot of water already,
and there is no space beneath them for the foils in most ports; it takes a lot
of power to get a large ship foil born (even though the power requirements
drop precipitously, once the hull is out of the water); finally, the hull must
be strong enough to be lifted out of the water by the hydrofoil struts. You
cannot simply add more struts, or the total drag eventually becomes almost as
bad as the hull being still in the water.
If the jump threshold is approximately the orbit of Jupiter, and each point of
thrust is one g [and we simplify things by ignoring the Sun's gravity and
angular momentum], the time for a thrust 2 ship to get to the jump threshold
from Earth's orbit is approximately 3 days, 8.5 hours (is that all?). The
thrust ten ship turns out not to have that great an advantage, it still takes
36 hours, so it only kicks ass on short runs. However, the further you have to
go to the jump threshold, the better the thrust 10 cargo ship works. It turns
out that travel time only decreases with the root of the constant
acceleration, not the square, as I mistakenly thought.
> [quoted text omitted]
> David Griffin wrote:
> If we're permitted Star Trek level tech, the fighters
--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> David Griffin wrote:
They remember, but are getting into the same problem sideways with "photonic
lifeforms" aka holodeck lifeforms. Yes, they're petrified to create sentient
starship, but clearly they can do it. Would this be a good idea? Hmm... maybe
and maybe not. Depends on whether they like you. If they don't you're in first
class trouble. If they do, you have a potentially far better ship that can
help get itself out of scrapes and is rather difficult to hijack. A ship that
can go on fighting even when the crew is incapacitated. A ship that can repair
itself with holographic crew if necessary.
Maybe it's ok if, like Moira on Farscape, the ship is unarmed. Even if you
plan to arm them (even a fighter) maybe it's better to start with unarmed
ships first to see how it goes (and make sure to treat them right so they
don't want to revolt).
I sometimes think that the Feds let one bad experience cause them to throw out
a whole concept when it doesn't deserve to be. Maybe you just don't use the
engrams of a psychotic when you make sentient computers?
> David Griffin wrote:
> --- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
Holodeck sims with intelligence are okay, as they are relatively incapable of
causing great amounts of destruction. Sentient ships have the problem that
they must not only react to situations, they must be
capable of pro-actively being in situations to react to (they must go
out and do things, without being told). Self aware machines capable of
pursuing their own interests are a problem, how do you convince them to do
what is expected of them?
There is the (now) old joke about how the japanese developed a fully
> On Wed, 20 June 2001, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
> Star Trek must know something that we do not, as they have explicitly
That's because Paramount didn't want them to make sentient warships. Star Trek
has a number of technological and social "gaffs" that occur due to Paramount's
"bible" or the whims of various writers.
> That's because Paramount didn't want them to make sentient warships.
Star Trek has a number of technological and social "gaffs" that occur due to
Paramount's "bible" or the whims of various writers.
That and it would put actors out of work............... :-)
> At 2:21 PM -0700 6/20/01, David Griffin wrote:
I think one thing that the Federation seems to realize is that once it is
sentient, it stops being a machine and starts being a valuable life. What if
you make this huge ship, endow the computer with life and then it doesn't want
to go fight? Do you force it? (possibly a serious problem...)
Why did HAL go mad? Because he was given conflicting orders that forced him to
lie when he could not. So he took the path of least resistance.
> On 19 Jun 2001 13:48:18 -0700 agoodall@canada.com writes:
<snip.
> Regardless of what really happens though, I like
I always get a chuckle when we get into "reality" discussions about the FT
(less so the DS2 and SG2 stuff) but I guess it's just an extension of
what model you use for your SF (Oh Lord, I've done it - used the "M"
word!) either WW1 Naval/WW2 Naval/ Modern Naval/Air Force/whatever as
what the assumptions you use. Allan assumes that AI and advances in science
will make unarmed fighters a reality. I assume this is a game and all
"reality" issues are more or less relevant to the fun of playing the game.
Hence all are acceptable to be read or be treated as "delete before reading"
material. *Why* they work the way they do is not as important as the fact that
they do. Although I find the 'invulnerable fighter' aspect a hole in an
otherwise wonderful system. If I was prone, I would mount all my DS2 drop
troops in 'transport fighters' and pass through the defending fleet
untouched... <grin>
Gracias,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:38:59 EDT, Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> Allan assumes that AI and advances in
Well, to be honest, I agree with that, too. I got into the AI discussion with
an offhand comment based on another "reality" discussion.
At least, I think that's how I Frankensteined the thread...
Realistically, I can see fighters not needing morale rolls. From a game
playing standpoint, I see that it balances the game properly. I DO use fighter
morale (I also like "colour striking", as well).