In the discussion among the IFWG re: New Jordanian Navy, (gratuitous ad:
http://www.angelfire.com/va/basileus/NewJordan.html has everything
except what I'm discussing here), Noam expressed the idea that in addition to
the handful of FTL ships and somewhat more numerous STL ships, the New
Jordanians relied a great deal on orbital installations and other stationary
targets. So I says "Hey, I need some of these to defend my planets too!". So I
sit down to design 'em. And I run into a big problem.
Thrusters.
I want my stations and sattelites to rotate and roll over, at least the
smaller ones. Otherwise some of my unmanned defense satellite designs start to
suck. See:
Defsat 1:
Mass 3
Hull 1
FiCon 1
Class 1
Total 12 points
This is good. This works fine.
Defsat 2, for those plagued by folks in small fast targets.
Mass 10
Hull 2
1xADFC 2
6xPDS 6
Total 40 points. Also not a problem.
Defsat 3:
Mass 3
Hull 1
MT Missle 2
Total 11 points. This needs to rotate to point at the bad guys.
As
does it's big brother,
Defsat 4:
Mass 5
Hull 1
SMR 4
Total 19
So are there any ideas on a mass/point cost for these puny thrusters
which can't move a ship a single inch, but can rotate and roll 'em? I'd like
to make 'em nominal mass, but cost 5% of station mass, or 1 point, whichever
is more.:)
In a message dated 99-02-12 00:23:39 EST, you write:
<< So are there any ideas on a mass/point cost for these puny thrusters
which can't move a ship a single inch, but can rotate and roll 'em? I'd like
to make 'em nominal mass, but cost 5% of station mass, or 1 point, whichever
is more.:)
John M. Atkinson >>
I would say 2/3 the cost/mass of the equive thruster on a normal ship,
with each thrust that you buy gets you one thrust point that can be used to
rotate the Sat.
-Stephen
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Defsat 3:
As
> does it's big brother,
According to Jon T. (in the FT FAQ), you need at least 1 FC to launch SMs
(unfortunately we missed to specify that in FB1). I'd say the same applies to
MT missiles (MT doesn't mention leaving the FCs out, since you
can't build a ship completely without FCs in the FT/MT rules...)
> So are there any ideas on a mass/point cost for these puny thrusters
I'd
> like to make 'em nominal mass, but cost 5% of station mass, or 1
Sounds pretty OK. Well, as long as you don't put these things on a
800-Mass space station, that is - rotation thrusters for such a beast
*would* use up a few Mass... so how about rotational thrusters use up 2%
of the total Mass (round normally - you're allowed to round down to 0 in
this case) and costs 3*(thruster)Mass (round normally) or 1 point, whichever
is more?
Later,
[John's nifty defsats]
I hadn't thought of going this small with defasts. Not a bad idea.
However, if they are unmanned, they should have some limitations -
disruptable by ECM, beam range bands of 10" instead of 12", Die rolls at
-1, or something like that. IF they are manned, they certainly won't be
jobs of choice for the military.
I'm working on 5 types of orbital installations - all heftier than
defsats.
- Platforms are various sizes and are basically big MT missile racks. NI
has 2, and the 3 other largest pop. centers heach have one of some size.
- Bases are big stations - Cruiser to battleship armament. Possibly
fighter bays. (NI has 2, the second largest pop center, Masada, has 1)
- Stations are smaller - Destroyer-CL armament (2 at NI, 2 at Midbar, 1
each at Masada and Yafo, several more scattered through the three systems)
- Outposts - More like a manned version of John's defsat's. Small lines
of defense for small colonies or strategic locations.
- Yards - Base or station+construction facilities (NI has 1, Masada has
1)
Larger worlds (like earth) could/should have DN/SDN size stations.
That said, I hadn't thought of these installations with any movement
capability at all - I was going to buy multiple arc beams and such. But
it makes sense to have maneuver thrusters. Seems to me that a station
that wants to roll/rotate should pay for thrust 1 engines at full mass
but 1/2 cost. They may be puny, but they have to overcome the same
inertia as ship's thrusters. Plus its a big savings not to have to buy extra
arcs for your heavier weapons.
> [John's nifty defsats]
I can see disruption by ECM, but can't figure reduced die rolls or
range band reductions. PSB expansion please? :-)
Mk
> Izenberg, Noam wrote:
Why? I figure the operation of these things is going to be real simple. They
always target the closest hostile ship in arc, and they don't do much else.
The ground command (or station command, or ship command, or whoever is
commanding them) sets them to one of a few setting, perhaps Red, Yellow, Green
(Don't shoot, Shoot only after positive verification, Shoot unless verified
friendly) depending on
threat level--Red being peacetime operations, Green being "Dammit, where
are all these Kra'Vak coming from?". After that it's nothing but a
targeting sensor. Which doesn't have a human in the loop--you don't
manually aim particle beams at starships with 6G maneuver drives across
thousands of km, regardless of what you see on St*r Tr*k (which fights only at
ranges under 2km, so it's not a real problem for them). So firecontrol would
be no more disrupted than would be the fire control of any other ship. Most
people onboard modern naval vessels are there for damage control and
maintinence, and these buggers don't need damage control and maintinence would
be a function of a tender moving in, taking them into a bay, doing whatever,
and putting them back.
> Izenberg, Noam wrote:
> That said, I hadn't thought of these installations with any movement
But
> it makes sense to have maneuver thrusters. Seems to me that a station
You can't buy Thrust 1 engines for a ship smaller than 20 mass without
fractional accounting, which morass I do NOT want Full Thrust to get into.
While I like the concept of defsats and I'm sure a set of rules for
"micro-thrusters" could be developed, I would wonder how they would
actually fair in play. As stationary targets they would be a prime target for
SMs. Obviously Defsat 2 could protect itself and other defsats in range, but
could be overwhelmed (one missile hit and it's all over).
On the other hand, they would make a cheap sponge for your opponent's SMs
instead of your ships.:)
Massive orbital forts (ala David Weber) with the extra 5 to 15% space they get
for dropping drives could add a slew of PDSs to really protect themselves.
my 2 credits, Nathan
> -----Original Message-----
As
> does it's big brother,
I'd
> like to make 'em nominal mass, but cost 5% of station mass, or 1
> Nathan Pettigrew wrote:
> While I like the concept of defsats and I'm sure a set of rules for
It's not one-on-one, you ought to buy a slew of these things. I put
together a package of these guys which included a small (100 mass)
battlestation, costed less than a dreadnought, and had some serious
throw-weight.
> On the other hand, they would make a cheap sponge for your opponent's
At 12 points a pop, you are breaking even, points-wise, if he fires a
SMR at them.
John,
Great ideas. This is exactly the kind of thing that I was thinking of for the
Hegemony Strategic Defence Force; expect to see some examples up there soon!
Colin M Nash
Nash's Law:- "The amount of crap owned will expand to fill the available
space plus 2 cubic metres"
[quoted original message omitted]
> So are there any ideas on a mass/point cost for these puny thrusters
I'd
> like to make 'em nominal mass, but cost 5% of station mass, or 1 point,
I'd call it the same as a thrust 1 main drive - which also gives them
the ability to adjust their orbits in between scenarios.
Someone said that the normal engines require fractional accounting below 20
spaces. How about do the normal calculation, and round the fraction up?
Or say that Thrusters only turn the craft, not move it, and take no space, but
say normal cost per point. And if you want to put on more than a few turns
worth, make them require space...
Donald Hosford
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >So are there any ideas on a mass/point cost for these puny thrusters
I'd
> >like to make 'em nominal mass, but cost 5% of station mass, or 1
In a message dated 99-02-12 14:36:46 EST, you write:
<< Someone said that the normal engines require fractional accounting below 20
spaces. How about do the normal calculation, and round the fraction up?
Or say that Thrusters only turn the craft, not move it, and take no space, but
say normal cost per point. And if you want to put on more than a few turns
worth, make them require space...
> Donald Hosford wrote:
Because that leaves me with, on a size 5 ship, a minimum of 4 thrust.:) You
can't just "Buy Thrust 1 drives" for a small ship.
And besides, Thrust 1 is (in many of the unofficial attempts to put in a scale
for FTII) equivelant to 1G worth of thrust. That's overkill. That's like
buying a racecar to drive to the grocery store 2 blocks down. I'm thinking.01G
or whatever.
In a message dated 99-02-12 23:44:42 EST, you write:
<< And besides, Thrust 1 is (in many of the unofficial attempts to put in a
scale for FTII) equivelant to 1G worth of thrust. That's overkill. That's like
buying a racecar to drive to the grocery store 2 blocks down. I'm thinking.01G
or whatever.
John M. Atkinson >> In Battlespace some of the destroyers could push upwards
of 4.5 Gs, with the speed of the destroyers in FB (6) you could say that each
thrust point
was 3/4
of a G, so the fastest ship in FB (thrust 8) is 6 Gs and the mechie ships
would be 1.5Gs now if I recall corectaly, ahh here it is:
Given: that 1 Manuver Unit (MU, 1" or 1cm) = 1000 km. Given: that 1 turn = 15
minutes (to fit neatly with DS2)
Then: 1 Thrust over 1 turn = 1/15th of 1 g (1 standard Terran gravity,
set to
10m/s/s), or 0.0167 g, or 66.67 cm/s^2
now if my schooling serves me that would (keeping the turn at 15 minutes) that
would make MU =11,00km, I think.
-Stephen
(snip all the discussion as to how to pay for "turn only" thrusters).
Pay the points for Thrust One but zero mass. That way it isn't free but, since
you're not paying for hull space, it's cheaper than a "real" thrust one. And
it's simple.
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> And besides, Thrust 1 is (in many of the unofficial attempts to put in
If you use realistic engines (specifically for this case a
deuterium-tritium fusion drive, which seems to work best), Thrust 1 -is-
0.01g. Of course, the distance scale then works out to be 1 MU = 40 km, which
is smaller than a lot of people want (even if it is realistic). Just food for
thought...
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> Given: that 1 Manuver Unit (MU, 1" or 1cm) = 1000 km.
Starting from rest and from position zero, the distance travelled under
constant acceleration is:
s = 1/2 a t^2
where
s = distance in meters
a = acceleration in m/s^2
t = time in secs
0.01 g is (approximately) 0.1 m/s^2, 15 minutes is 900 sec. So the
distance is for this case:
s (meters) = 1/2 (0.1 m/s^2) (900 sec)^2 = 40,500 meters = 40.5 km
Using 1/15 g = 0.6667 m/s^2 (I don't quite see where the 0.0167 g came
from, but maybe I'm missing something obvious - at any rate we get the
same thing for m/s^2!) this is:
s (meters) = 1/2 (0.6667 m/s^2) (900 sec)^2 = 270,000 meters = 270 km
To get 1000 km/MU you need (forgive me for showing all the work, I'm
working this out on the screen - always dangerous <g>):
1,000,000 meters = 1/2 g (900 sec)^2
=> g = 2 (1,000,000 meters) / (900 sec)^2 = 2.47 m/s^2 = 0.25 g
which is a number I've seen tossed around here, I think. But keep in mind that
in order for the Full Thrust engines to include enough fuel for one
ten-turn battle, 0.01 g thrust is the best you can do with current
technology (for example, chemical rockets do a lot better than this, but
you need so much fuel that the rocket is -mostly- fuel, which just
doesn't fit in the Full Thrust model).
Someone please check my math, though, I should know better than to not do it
on paper first!
> Keith Watt wrote:
> If you use realistic engines (specifically for this case a
I go with the reactionless drives in the background--I strongly prefer
to have space travel be feasible as a commercial enterprise without generation
ships. I havn't worked out the exact scales I'm using, but 1 turn is going to
be fairly short. Perhaps a minute, which would give me 1 Thrust is 1G and 1MU
is 1000km.
> And besides, Thrust 1 is (in many of the unofficial attempts to put in
Actually I didn't literally mean a thrust 1 drive, but an equivalent piece of
gear that "costs" the same and gives the results we were looking for.
In a message dated 99-02-13 10:08:13 EST, you write:
<< which is a number I've seen tossed around here, I think. But keep in mind
that in order for the Full Thrust engines to include enough fuel for one
ten-turn battle, 0.01 g thrust is the best you can do with current
technology (for example, chemical rockets do a lot better than this, but
you need so much fuel that the rocket is -mostly- fuel, which just
doesn't fit in the Full Thrust model).
Someone please check my math, though, I should know better than to not do it
on paper first!
Keith >> I gives some of the same numbers that I came up with, so I think that
it is corect, what I think that the engines in FT are is reaction plates (I
heard about this some were but I don't remeber) powered by fusion generators.
-Stephen
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> I go with the reactionless drives in the background--I strongly prefer
Yeah reactionless drives are great - lugging around fuel (and having to
worry about refueling) is a bear. BTW, if I do the math right, for 1
thrust = 1 g and 1 MU = 1000 km, I get that you need about 7 1/2 minute
turns. That works pretty well with Dirtside, as well. Didn't someone suggest
those scales a while back? I can't recall.. As you point out, it all depends
on what genre you want to use (and how close to reality you want to stay).
TTYL..
> Keith wrote:
I Told You So!
> That works pretty well with Dirtside, as well. Didn't someone
Yes I Did.
(I so seldom get an opportunity to say that that I felt it obligatory on this
occasion).
> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:07:33 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
> Someone please check my math, though, I should know better than to not
Your math looks good and your physics seem correct, but you may want to
reconsider your assumptions; in FT physics doesn't work quite the same.
In the real world, this is correct:
> Starting from rest and from position zero, the distance travelled under
But for FT physics, it isn't. In the real world, a ship that used continuous
acceleration of thrust 8 for one turn from a stationary position would only
travel 4 mu but would have a speed of 8 at the end of the turn.
But that is not the case in Full Thrust's vector movement system; the ship
gets a full 8 mu in the turn it accelerates. Personally, I prefer this
"Physics Lite" approach since it is easier to keep track of, but it does make
this type of calculation a little more complicated.
For the purposes of getting your scale right, I suggest that you may want
to use the end-of-turn velocity as your yardstick instead. Or more
simply, use the modified formula of:
s = a t^2