Several people have mentioned "planet types" while discussing the detail level
for the Official History of the Future(tm). I thought I'd pitch this out and
then expend all thrust on evasive maneuvering 8): John Barnes, in the March
1990 Analog, has an article on "How to Build a Future". Among other things, he
postulates that there are just a few type of planets:
1. Wet Mars (smaller and cooler than Earth, a scattering of
islands);
2. Utah (big, dry, huge mountains, livable seacoasts);
3. Cold Indonesia (cooler than Earth, with small continents and
large islands, habitable in the tropics and lower temperate zones);
4. Odd ones that don't fit a category.
Now, he got these from random number generation across a spreadsheet for the
"six randomizing factors that went into each planet" (and if anyone knows what
he's talking about, especially parameters and how to determine
how many resource areas there are, e-mail me) so there's no reason that
we have to stick with those types he came up with. We might, however, decide
on a few basic planet types that are habitable without terraforming. Note
that I am not suggesting "a jungle planet"--any real habitable planet is
going to have a range of climates. Nor am I trying to limit
creativity--if
you want a weird planet, design it. I just don't feel that every single planet
has to be totally different from every other one; and I don't want to have to
design from scratch every time just to have a feel for what it's like.
(Compare: "You're entering a star system. In the habitable zone there is a
(roll one die) Large Indonesia type planet" versus "In the habitable zone
there is...um, how about design a Kra'Vak flotilla for me while I design the
planet you're landing on?") There are only a few basic climates and a few
basic terrain types so it shouldn't be hard to design five or so classes of
world ("geotypes"?) that will guarantee every combination is readily
available.
I hope that by "planet types" you mean habitable planets. For a campaign I was
writing a planet, indeed all planets, were described by 4 varibles;
size of population and/or military bases it could support (very abstract
measure of surface area), a habitability rating from 0 to 10 (zero lifeless
rock, 10 Eden, Earth currently about 6) which determined maintaince costs, an
industry rating to indicate how industrially developed the planet was and a
resource rating which multiplied industry rating to give production. If you
want to be more specific then there are several factors to consider. This is
not just for habitable planets
1) Size - small and you have no atmosphere, really big and you
have an atmosphere with pressure that crushes you. Small and you usually have
no molten core to give you a protective magnetic field, really big and the
pull of gravity gives nearby moons molten cores and magnetic fields. Small and
its real easy to get into orbit, even for PA, really big and you'll never get
off. What size forces can be deployed here and how many people could possibly
live there?
2) Atmosphere - the amount you have is important as is its
composition. No CO2 and plants (as we know them anyway) won't grow, too much
and you have Venus. No 02 and your troops can't breave, too much and every
time you fire a weapon you get an explosion and a fire. The amount of
atmosphere will affect the preformance of conventional aircraft and GEVs. The
amount of oxygen will affect to preformance of nonPA troops (except perhaps
Gurkas who are used to low air pressures abd less oxygen).
3) Tempreature - partly a function of how far from a star and
partly the nature of the planets atmosphere. Absolute Zero doesn't do working
parts, including people, much good. Then again you wouldn't do much better on
a place like Venus.
4) Stability - if the surface of the planet is constantly
changing, and by this I also mean by meteor impact as well as planetquakes,
flooding oceans (like on Europa), ice packs, glaciers, volcanos etc, it might
make buliding on it impossible and thus render the planet totally useless.
Troops might refuse to use fortifcations and entrenchments. Keeping stores
becomes far more difficult and casualties amongst men and equipment are bound
to be higher under such conditions.
5) Resources - what does the planet have that you can use?
6) Population - how many people/creatures live there? What sort
of
people/creatures live there.
Obviously this last might take some time depending on how involved you want to
be. At first all you need to tell the player is the size of the planet. As the
player approaches and spends time studying a planet then the more they will
learn needing perhaps only one roll each turn. Of course you could be really
keen and pregenrate all the star systems you are likely to need (and then see
all 80 go to waste as the campaign gets taken over by one than seems simpler
and has had 3 changes to the tech system and 2 to the economic in just 3
turns. Oh well thats my whinge). I might be pessamistic but I really don't see
combat being limited to "habitable" worlds, for a number of reasons, and for
that reason I think you have to be able to handle all types of planets, not
just habitable ones.
Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au
> At 12:41 28/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
Note
> that I am not suggesting "a jungle planet"--any real habitable planet
that
> will guarantee every combination is readily available.
Tony Wilkinson said:
> I hope that by "planet types" you mean habitable planets.
Yes. I assume that if it isn't worth living there, it isn't worth fighting
over. For those cases where you have a mining or research settlement, it's
easy enough to have habitat domes on whatever terrain you feel like fighting
on.
> Yes. I assume that if it isn't worth living there, it isn't worth
I take it you are assuming human habitation. If the KV and SV are out there,
we can assume that humans will eventually be fighting on alien soil. Sometime
you have to take the fight to the enemy.:)
> Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> I hope that by "planet types" you mean habitable planets. For a
[snip]
I actually prefer to be even more abstract that that. Three ratings tied
directly into FT:
1) How much crew/troops it can provide
2) How much industry for construction/supplies
3) How many ship yards for building ships
Granted that this is somewhat FT-centric, and doesn't give much for
DS/SG
scenarios. However, just tie in a short description of the planet, and your
there.
> Tony Wilkinson said:
Resources, resources, resources. There are many instances of places not worth
living in that are often fought over.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
Schoon has hit the nail on the head. nothing else matters,
the availability of resources and the desire to acquire them is what drives
all the action. In Campaign98, a planet has only one value, how many resource
points it produces. (This also limits the ability to garrison the
planet.) Planet types: Small and medium hot. Small and medium cold. Gas giant
and moons. Habitable(medium).
One Resource point equals 10 FT build points and 1 mass during shipment.
(Shipment presumes a build facility does not
exist at the planet/)
To make any non-habitable planet produce, three resource points
(one time cost) must be put into the planet for each resource point taken out.
The object for us, is to produce space combat situations, but this could
easily work for ground combat.
Bye for now,
> From: John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
> > Resources, resources, resources. There are many instances of places
None spring to mind other than, say, North Sea oil rigs, which is analogous to
habitat domes. I personally wouldn't want to live in, say, Siberia or the
Amazon, but they are habitable. And even so, they are not as developed as,
say, France, simply because you have to invest resources to exploit them, and
the investment is a lot larger in a place that has to be terraformed even to
the moderate extent that Siberia or the Amazon would require.
Of course, you may not have a choice--the only balonium deposit in
your territory is in a particularly unpleasant environment. Okay, do you build
a dome and exploit the mines right now; or do you spend the credits to
terraform the place and wait for however many years it takes to develop a
breathable atmosphere, etc., before you start digging for balonium?
> Schoon has hit the nail on the head. nothing else matters,
You are talking about strategic importance; I am talking about climate and
terrain, to give it flavor. You could have a "large Indonesia" planet which is
wealthy or broke, but for either you're going to use more GEV's
and fewer track-laying vehicles than you would in some other situations;
you're just a lot less likely to fight over the place with no resources.
Places can have plenty of strategic importance and little/no
resources... If we agree with the idea that FTL travel has limited range,
requiring
layovers and lots of short-distance jumps to get anywhere distance, then
there will be places that are valuable simply by virtue of being...
well...
in the right place...
If you have three productive colony worlds off thataway, and the quickest
route to get there happens to require a stopover in/near a system with
very
little productive potential, it aquires value/importance simply by
virtue of it's status as a portal. This theme has been used lots by SF authors
over the years. Actually, if you think about it, this was a constant theme
during the whole "Europeans exploring and exploiting the world" part of our
history here on good ole' Earth. That's why places like St.Helena became
"valuable" in their time - not because of inherent resource value, but
because of good location. "...There's three things you need for a
successful *war*: location, location, location..." :-)
In the end, the fight will be about resources (whether that be food, minerals,
diamonds, big furry monsters with valuable pelts, or even living
space or things more esoteric like privacy/peace and quiet/unfettered
freedom from persecution/etc), but you gotta get there. Of course, if
you have FTL travel that lets you get anywhere you want quickly, then there's
NO value in these kinds of places, and it does come back to "resources,
resources, resources". I much prefer the "limited travel range" view of things
though. Makes it all much more interesting.
Adrian
> > Resources, resources, resources. There are many instances of places
> On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >Tony Wilkinson said:
North Africa, WW2. Not valuable in and of itself, but as a route to the
Suez Canal, mid-East oil fields, etc.
Ditto the battle of the Falklands, WW1. It was on the route to other
intrinsically valuable places, and acted merely as a coaling stop for the RN.
So the Germans wanted it...(Falklands 1982 was a different
situation. More a stopover on the route to utter loss of Empire/prestige
by the UK and gaining of same by the Argies, at least from the Arg. point of
view...didn't quite work out that way, of course)
More recently, the 90/91 Gulf War. It's all utter desert, but there's
oil under it, so it's important. Can't (comfortably) live there, though.
We wind up with two sorts of unpleasant places: Places usable as
way-stations/"coaling stops" with no resources, and unpleasant places
with resources of their own. Both potentially worth fighting over, but neither
terribly nice places to live.
> Ditto the battle of the Falklands, WW1. It was on the route to other
point
> of view...didn't quite work out that way, of course)
NO NO NO NO NO. Total myth. Wasn't about Empire, prestige, strategic value,
oil rights or any of the other things people have been bandying about for two
decades...
It was an international penguin conspiracy.
<big snip>
> We wind up with two sorts of unpleasant places: Places usable as
So what sort of planets are we likely to fight over and how will the
enviroment affect the game.
1) Planets without magnetic field. Treat as normal for night combat. Should
light from nearby sun fall on the planet then draw chits for all units on the
table as if in outer zone of nuclear attack. All colours valid in full
daylight drop one colour if
twilight/dawn or under native vegetation. (eg unit in open full light
takes hits on all chits, in the open at dawn takes damage only on red and
yellow, if dawn and under native forest takes red only, if also dug in is not
effected until full light when reds are valid). DFFGs gain 6" range per range
band. Troops have to do a confidence test to move out of cover.
2) Planets without atmosphere. VTOLS and GEVs cannot operate (dur), only PA
infantry (or Enviro suits as in another post) can be used. Range of all
weapons except DFFG and HELs increased by 2" for each range band. HELs have
unlimited range. Range of ADS, LAD and ZAD are increased by half. Calculate
infantry casulaties as normal and then double the result. No CFE powered
vehicles
3) Planets with thick atmosphere. VTOLS gain 5" base movement. Grav's lose 3"
base movement due to drag. GEVs have normal movement as they both gain and
lose. However GEV's can now
preform pop-ups from hidden positions (only about the same as the height
of the vehicle) if they make no other movement that turn or the previous turn.
All weapons except HELs and DFFGs lose 2" range per range band. HELs have
range reduced to 48". Range of ADS, LAD and ZAD is reduced by half.
4) Planets with low gravity. (I'm thinking moon here) VTOLS cannot operate as
they are likely to reach escape velocity without great care. GEVs would have
the same problem and should be limited to no more than 8" per move (note this
is 8" of actual movement without terrain modifiers). Gravs (assuming they have
to act against a gravity field) have
base movement reduced in the same propotion as gravity. ie 1/4 gravity
then movement is 4". For other vehicles Mountains, rivers and Swamps are
treated as one terrian type better (ie Difficult becomes Poor). All artillery
is out. Except for DFFGs and HELs weapon ranges are the same but always count
the target as one range band closer ie a HKP 4 still shoots only 48" but
counts the target as medium range. Range of ADS, LAD and ZAD are increased by
half.
5) Planets with high gravity (say twice Earth). GEVs operate as normal if in
thick atmosphere otherwise are grounded. VTOLS cannot hover. Gravs lose and
yet win by the old "equal and opposite" rule, treat as normal. For other
vehicles Swamps, rivers, hills and mountains become one terrian type worse (ie
Normal becomes Poor). Weapons except DFFGs and HELs have the same range but
treat targets as being one extra range band away and draw 2 less chits in what
would normally be long range. Artillery range is reduced to half. Range of
ADS, LAD and ZAD is reduced by half. For SGII perhaps reduce mission
motivation by one level as everything the troops do tires them out so much
more and all they care about is sleep.
6) Ice worlds (like Europa and now Io). Any artillery or air strike using DFO
has a 1 in 6 chance of producing a "spurter" or geshyer (my spelling is
shocking but one of those things thats spurts up hot water from undergound).
If a "spurter" results then it lasts d8 turns and all units within a 3" radius
must draw 3 chits each turn. Valid chits are red for armoured vehicles, red
and yellow for PA and soft vehicles and all chits for normal infantry. Ice may
shatter but it hurts if moving fast enough. Also all vehicles, unless Grav or
GEV, test each turn to see if they crash through, say 1 in 10 chance plus half
size round down.
If within 6" of an air or artillery strike +2 chance of going under, -1
if
low gravity planet, +half size round down if high gravity.
These are just some ideas. You might think of others and there might be some
where the effects are more approriate to a campaign game.
This is answer a few questions Tom had and to show what I had in mind and why.
Firstly I have a nasty streak so effects should hurt. I like being a bastard.
Second I have done no science since High School so forgive me if some ideas
are based on incorrect assumptions.
1) Planets without magnetic fields. Ok maybe a little hard but should have an
affect in longer term for campaigns. Also if your on the dark side of a planet
then the planet should be shielding you from the worst of the radiation so
night shouldn't be so bad. Didn't consider all the electronics going haywire,
perhaps count all firecons one level down or all system downs chits affect
both firer and target. With the DFFG that's my misunderstanding of how they
worked.
2) Planets without Atmosphere. You could have rocket hover type craft but then
the would really be spacecraft, no?
3) Planets with thick atmosphere. I assumed that a fan or prop in a thick
atmosphere would be moving a greater amount of air for a give amount of power
(roughly) than in a thiner atmosphere. GEVs and VTOLs would thus gain in power
but lose some performance to drag. Anyone know the maths for this?
4) Planets with low gravity. Artillery is ballistic and with little or no
gravity its going to be a long way off (increased range) if it doesn't make
escape velocity which is more likely once you get below half a G (maths
anyone?). Didn't think of
making them anti-shipping weapons. Perhaps they do damage as per
railguns with light artillery rated as class 1's, medium class 2, heavy class
3.
6) Ice worlds. Ooops! Callisto not Io (must have Arthur C Clarke on my mind).
Similar to Europa with a liquid ocean (very salty according to theory coming
out of UCLA) under lots of ice. Like your ideas Tom. I still think that ice
chucks that get thrown up should do infantry some harm (I've just reread
"Forever War" which is pretty grim about enviroments) but I don't play either
DSII or SGII much so an under fire marker might be enough.
Other things that might be considered are ho the weather on these planets
might operate and how various weather conditions affect the battlefield. Also
how do you go about maintaining equipment in some of these enviroments. In a
campaign setting the destruction of enemy maintainence depots would become
more important. Anyway I'll give this all more thought but I hope you all find
some of it useful.
Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au
> At 13:31 30/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
John M. Atkinson worried:
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
It's a secret conspiracy. No identities are known; no models are available.
We'll be having a brief talk with Mr.Johnson later. A very brief talk. Fnord.
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> It was an international penguin conspiracy.
Uh-oh. Next we'll have threads on where to get the minis to model the
penguin conspirators.
The use of known stars is a great idea and I hope that it becomes commonly
available to all the gamers. THe use of "official" time lines or history
should not be used. Suggested histories would be ok for those who want to use
them but the great thing about the GZG rules is that it should be left up to
the gamers. There is already enough rules out there trying to tell me how to
paint my figures and what the official time line is, and the units T.O.E.
"Just fork over the money and we will do the rest".... those games are not for
me. Many planets will not be about to hold life but be very rich in minerals
and resources. How about a planet with a hydrogen based atmosphere? Maybe the
aliens homeworld? A moon like planet abundent in high tech ore and a strategic
location? Please include all types of planets for our use.
> On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
Pingu in Heavy Gear... it HAS to be done!
Tom
> On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, Adrian Johnson wrote:
point
> >of view...didn't quite work out that way, of course)
> NO NO NO NO NO. Total myth. Wasn't about Empire, prestige, strategic
quite right!
> It was an international penguin conspiracy.
erm... leave Linus out of this!
the real reason that war was fought was so that maggie thatcher could ride a
wave of nationalistic fervour into the next election. mi6 knew that the
argentnians planned to invade; two frigates sent down to the falklands could
have prevented the ware, but then labour would have won the
election. similar to roosevelt (? - my history ain't what it used to be)
and pearl harbour, except his reason was much better (bring the usa into the
war).
Tom
> On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
a little extreme, don't you think? not even on mercury is radiation at nuke
levels; there are no hard gammas nor neutrons, for a start.
> All colours valid in full daylight drop one colour if
care to explain this? how does it being night without a magnetic field affect
damage effects?
> DFFGs gain 6" range per
i think the main limit on dffg range is due to atmosphere, not magnetic field.
> Troops have to do a confidence test to move out of cover.
cool. how about looking at the effect of particle flux on electronics? fire
control, missile guidance, ecm, stealth, pds, ads, lad, all drop one level.
> 2) Planets without atmosphere.
fair enough, but you should allow alternatives. i guess most airless
worlds are also low-gravity, so i am thinking of rocket-powered hoverers
like the Apollo lunar module, or the Eagles from space:1999; i think nasa even
did a study of a lunar jet rover at one point. maybe if you seal up the
intakes in a VTOL and pipe in a supply of reaction mass, they can still
operate?
> No CFE powered vehicles
and no open vehicles - try driving a jeep in a space suit. oh, hang on,
that's been done: it's a lunar rover. still, not exactly a
combat-capable
vehicle. reduced movement if an open vehicle?
> 3) Planets with thick atmosphere.
the speed of sound is lower in a thin atmosphere, and if your craft is
designed for subsonic flight, you have to keep below the sound barrier. thus,
vtols should have their movement limited to some value, probably
slower than usual speed. i remember plans to build low-speed prop planes
for mars exploration as something like a cessna would break the sound barrier
...
> 4) Planets with low gravity. (I'm thinking moon here)
on the contrary, artillery is even more useful as it now has a longer range.
in fact, size 6 artillery may now be used to engage targets in low orbit...
> 5) Planets with high gravity (say twice Earth).
good rule. perhaps PA are immune as they can just jack up the suit strength to
compensate?
> 6) Ice worlds (like Europa and now Io).
whaddaya mean, 'now io'? should i do some catching up on my planetary geology
reading?
speaking of ice worlds (or rather, ice-over-ocean worlds, or even just
ocean worlds in general), what about underwater combat? if humans have
colonised the continental shelves on some planets (the inner ones, where we
can use the ocean circulation for cooling and shielding from radiation, and
the outer ones, where it is insulation and a source of
heat convected up from the mantle, not to mention a resource - a
hydrocarbon sea is easy to mine...), then we need to be able to fight
engagements there. laser weapons are out; DFFGs would have shorter ranges
but possibly greater effects, large-calibre weapons (HVC, RFAC) won't
work, and small-calibre hypervelocity stuff (HKP, MDC) will have reduced
range. rockets will still be ok. no CFE. no troopers without enviro or
power suits. no open vehicles. cut-down sensor ranges. a new weapon for
riverine craft - 'depth charge'. gevs are out. infantry movement is cut
down, but infantry can be equipped with Personal Aquatic Mobility Units
-
little pods with propellers. they work the same as cavalry.
> Any artillery or air strike using DFO has a 1 in 6 chance of
geyser? gusher? geisha?
> If a "spurter" results then it lasts
it hurts; it doesn't kill tanks! how about saying it puts an under-fire
marker on infantry but doesn't actually hurt anyone. otoh, if you are around
when it stops and the liquid freezes, you are immobilised.
> Also all vehicles, unless Grav or GEV, test each turn
good rule! apply the same to powered infantry, rating them as size 1
vehicles (they have little mass but is concentrated on - literally - two
square feet). another reason to hang onto those light forces...
all in all, some very good ideas in there. well done!
Tom
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
they cannot be any worse than raw space, and starships seem to do alright.
build your mining plant to starship quality levels (shields, perhaps), limit
excursions and follow a proactive medical programme, and you're ok.
alternatively, go the Kim Stanley Robinson on Mercury route and only colonise
the dark side of the planet. this may well involve building a moving colony.
deal with it.
> IMHO, too hazardous to attempt to extract any resources no matter how
ha! as if i was worried about some two-bit turkish ruffians :-)
> > 2) Planets without atmosphere.
very true. there is some way of working out what gases can remain trapped in
an atmosphere, given the gravity. you can figure out the escape velocity from
the field strength, and then figure out how massive particles have to be to be
trapped from some sort of thermal physics equation.... i'll look it up.
Tom
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
maybe. bear in mind that today's suit holds a low-pressure environment,
provides a little thermal insulation, does nothing against radiation, gives
virtually no protection against micrometeorites and provides no armour. a suit
that does that will, in 2185, be something like clingfilm, i'm sure. however,
i think that experience shows that, given the choice between making the
infantryman's burden less and just giving him more of the lighter stuff,
planners will opt for the latter ("what's that? full neutron screening? okay,
five kilos doesn't sound too much...").
that said, it does of course depend on how *you* see space-suits
developing in the future. dirtside is a broad church (it hs to be, to get
those size fives down the aisle...).
> I'd think that these would not
'of some kind' being the operative word. a tank-suit is going to be like
a shuttle ascent suit; it's there to help you survive in a minor disaster
(tank explosions are nonsurvivable, even with the biggest suit) and not get in
the way. a moonsuit is a different kettle of fish altogether; it has to allow
the wearer to survive in vacuum for several hours. it's basically powered
armour without the power or the armour. forget i said that.
> Most vehicle
i don't know that us vs iraq is a good model; how many iraquis survived their
tanks being blown up? take the average of coalition and iraqui rates and you
have a figure for equals engaging. but yes, you are right to say that the crew
are worth preserving; in developed nations, good soldiers
are hard to find - tanks are just machines.
> > engagements there. laser weapons are out; DFFGs would have shorter
blue-green goes through water better than, say, red, but it is still
massively worse than in air. lasers underwater aren't much use. of course, if
this is a hydrocarbon sea, the situation is different; anyone have any
experience with petrooptics?
Tom
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
fair enough!
> Second I have done no science since High School so forgive me if
no worries; science is a straightjacket which helps to solve certain problems.
perhaps not this one.
> 1) Planets without magnetic fields.
my reading was that things got worse at night; oops...
> 2) Planets without Atmosphere.
ah, but on an airless planet, where does space start? at the surface?
these rocket fliers could be too small to reach escape velocity, and so would
not really qualify as spacecraft. also, if there is no atmosphere,
does this mean i can bring down my destroyer to provide close-range fire
support? it would cross the table in one go, much like aerospace strikes.
> 3) Planets with thick atmosphere.
pass! i really have no idea here; i could well be wrong.
> 4) Planets with low gravity.
well, if you can use a smaller charge in your gun or aim on a
low trajectory rather than a high one, you can use arty on low-g worlds.
low g and thin atmosphere would give huge ranges - the rifles in Edgar
Rice Burroughs' mars books had immense ranges.
> which is
good idea. however, that might be too powerful; maybe a battery should count
as a scatterpack?
Tom
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> <big snip>
> These are just some ideas. You might think of others and there
> So what sort of planets are we likely to fight over and how
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> 1) Planets without magnetic field.
IMHO, too hazardous to attempt to extract any resources no matter how
valuable. Hence if you want them, the NRE won't stand in your way.
> 2) Planets without atmosphere.
> 4) Planets with low gravity. (I'm thinking moon here)
Editorial note: If you've got too low a gravity (moon, for instance) you will
likely overlap with above category. Or the atmosphere will be some sort of
wierdo exotic compound mix. Or atmosphere will be thin.
Additional category: Smaller/Larger planets than Earth (ties in closely
with gravity). Horizons! On a Traveller Size 5 world, the horizon is 4km away.
This obviously limits visibility and hence max range of weapons.
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> > No CFE powered vehicles
Excuse me? What makes you think that spacesuits will be as encumbering in 200
years as they were 30 years ago? I'd think that these would not be that much
more encumbering than, say, NSL Full body armor. And even in sealed vehicles,
you ought to be wearing a suit of some
kind--otherwise when the hull is breached, you're screwed. Most vehicle
crews survive the destruction of their vehicle--we had a looong thread
on US M1s in Desert Storm being rendered combat ineffective, but the comment
was made over and over that no crewman was actually killed (at least that I
can find reference to).
> engagements there. laser weapons are out; DFFGs would have shorter
Blue-green lasers aren't out. I'd be using submersibles with torpedos
and Blue-green lasers.
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
An atmosphere where firing your HEL results in a catastrophic explosion
engulfing the entire atmosphere...planetary fuel-air explosives...
> Additional category: Smaller/Larger planets than Earth (ties in
This is true - weapons like HELs and the bigger MDCs/etc have ranges
limited not by weapon range by by sensor range - stuff is hard to hit
when
it's over the curve of the horizon. On bigger-than-Earth worlds, you'd
have horizon lines farther away, and corespondingly greater ranges.
This would also be a bigger factor, I think, in determining ranges on
small vacumn worlds, eg Luna/asteroids/etc. I think the horizon on Luna
is
only 2-3 km away (info/math, anyone?) so sight lines rather than weapons
ranges matter.
In vacumn worlds, DFFGs would have hugely increased ranges, as well.
'Everything close range band, maybe? I could see using DFFG/5s in
appropriate mounts as light anti-starship weapons on small vacumn
worlds.
My $0.02,
<snip>
> 3) Planets with thick atmosphere.
You have VTOL's gaining 5" of movement. Yes, fans/props would be moving
more air, for a given rpm, but would need more power to maintain that rpm
compared with the lower pressure atmosphere. With higher air density would
come much higher aerodynamic drag. Planes move slower at lower altitude
for a given power setting - that's why the Concorde flys up at 50,000
feet.
Same with military aircraft - it costs them HUGE in fuel to go past
Mach 1 at low altitudes, they can suffer overheating problems on the leading
edges of wings and other bits, etc. If you increase pressure beyond Terran sea
level standard, you'd have all kinds of odd effects - like the speed of
sound slowing down which would mean you'd run into supersonic shockwave
problems at lower absolute velocities, etc etc. I'd tend to think that with a
thicker atmosphere, your VTOL's will
a) perform better in the low speed/hovering regime
b) consume more fuel doing it c) not be able to achieve maximum velocities as
high as they could in a
lower pressure atmosphere - though if your VTOL's are slow vehicles
anyway (analagous to present day helicopters relative to the other types of
vehicles) it might not make any difference.
d) you might see an increase in their maximum carrying capacity - though
this does get limited by the aircraft's structural strength during landing
(often planes take off with more weight than they can land with without
collapsing their landing gear or causing other structural damage -
that's one of the reasons pilots dump fuel in an emergency)
Grav vehicles would see a decrease in their maximum speeds at low altitude
- or at least would use more power and get hotter achieving them...
As to GEV's - I think the same sort of effect would happen... they'd be
able to carry more weight overall, but might use more fuel to do it. I'm
not sure about the pop-up thing, though...
Anyway - just some thoughts, which could be completely wrong. In days
gone
by, I was an amateur pilot, not an aeronautical engineer /
aerodynamicist...
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> > IMHO, too hazardous to attempt to extract any resources no matter
The Skythakoi are all I NEED to whack whatever you choose to put in my way
(Yes, that'a fair way of describing some of the Mercs employed by
the NRE). Are you going to be at GZG-ECC?
> Additional category: Smaller/Larger planets than Earth (ties in
Not really. It just means that the table IS the planets surface.
> At 16:39 30/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
<SNIP>
Starships survive one pressumes because the hull is shielded against exactly
this kind of thing. If on a planet then you need to be underground which,
according to most visions, will even the case for Mars which is further away
from the Sun than we are. War tends to require lots of excursions outside. The
effects were meant to represent not nessicarily people getting ill but also
people nicking off and finding a nice shielded bunker to hide in until dark.
Remember that one of the most talked about problems with getting a manned
(peopled to be PC) mission to Mars is radiation during the trip particularly
during sun flare activity.
> At 16:28 30/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
Yes but I thought that the extra drag on the fan was insignificant to the
extra volume of air moved.
> I'd tend to think that
Ok so lets say that VTOL's lose 5" movement in low mode but are unaffected in
high mode. Also that normally a size of vehicle equal to the number of
infantry stands the VTOL can carry may be airlifted by VTOL on a sling
underneath the aircraft but movement is reduced to half. In thick atmosphere
this is increased by one size, in thin it is reduced by 1. It takes 3 turns to
ready the vehicle (or gun, cargo) for airlift and 1 turn to detach.
> Grav vehicles would see a decrease in their maximum speeds at low
Yes which I think is what I said.
> As to GEV's - I think the same sort of effect would happen... they'd be
I'm
> not sure about the pop-up thing, though...
Yes but as I though they gained some power through moving a greater volume of
atmosphere the effects cancelled out (at least most of the time so as to make
it unimportant enough to ignore). I think the Grav vehicles should get
the pop-up attack anyway. My thought was that in thick atmosphere GEVs
came close to acting like VTOLs.
> Anyway - just some thoughts, which could be completely wrong. In days
You're one up on me in these things then. The whole idea was to spark thought
and discussion.
> At 13:40 30/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
Ok. Sounds good. At that scale the whole table is literally the planets
surface. I wonder how many people could adapt to that situation and support
units on the left by moving to the right. You'd have to start both forces well
into the middle of the table otherwise they would start off by facing back to
back. Challenge!
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
in that case i'll just put a few colony ships full of photogenic civilians in
your way and watch the UN pound your shipyards to ashes...
> Are you going to be at GZG-ECC?
well, getting to Lancaster is a bit of a hassle for me. i have to get a
train to london - no problem - and then ride the Tube a little way, but
the train up from london to lancaster is one of Branson's Virgin mostrosities,
so it's a pain.
getting to Lancaster, PA, on the other hand, is not far off impossible.
try live in the uk + is a student = no money. hell, i don't even know
what state PA stands for.
anyway, i prefer to do my fighting with words at intercontinental ranges
...
Tom
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Brian Burger wrote:
such an atmosphere is very, very unlikely to exist. Fitt's law: systems tend
to the most stable state. a mixture of fuel and oxidiser is less stable than
the combustion products, and so will (quite rapidly) turn into it; if a HEL
shot is enough to set it off, so is a meteorite strike or something.
> In vacumn worlds, DFFGs would have hugely increased ranges, as well.
good point. i think the vacuum rules are going to turn out well - i love
the idea of asteroid combat where vehicles would just float off into space, so
only infantry can be used, and where you can move from one rock to another by
jumping...
Tom
My assumption is he's speaking specifically of line-of-sight weopens;
actually ballistic, too, as they'd tend to be already beyond escape velocity.
Problem is, to do it right, you'd want a medicine ball instead of
a table, with double sticky tape on the bases of the figs. ;->=
The_Beast, who suddenly has a vision of someone tossing a grenade, and
it has time to orbit right up behind him
Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au> on 11/30/98 06:18:47 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)
Subject: Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of
Stars)
> Additional category: Smaller/Larger planets than Earth (ties in
Not really. It just means that the table IS the planets surface.
Tony.
Hi all! I'm new to the list, and new to GZG, just picked up FT MT and DS2,
great systems. Anyway, regarding the comments on VTOLs, speed and carrying
capacity.
The fans on a VTOL have the same power output in the dense atmo as a standard,
so, even though more mass will get moved through it, same mass
will be ejected at a lower velocity (conservation of momentum), so, no
increase in speed. Also, drag is a non linear function, generally it is a
function of the square of the velocity of the vehicle, so drag is a major
deal, in fact, the VTOL may even LOSE some speed.
Carrying capacity will not go up, again since the greater mass is ejected at a
lower velocity. The denser atmosphere gives no advantages,
and creates disadvantages at low altitude.
Just my 0.02 American
By the way, are there any utilities to aid in playing FT and such by E Mail,
I'd love to play someone by that media.
JimC
> By the way, are there any utilities to aid in playing FT and such by E
Everthing in the public domain can be found at URL below
Basically you need spreadsheets and a mapping program. Jon Davis has some
really nice spreadsheets which are available here. Ftmap is good at producing
maps, links from here.
> At 11:54 AM 12/1/98 -0800, you wrote:
To which the ruling cabal of New Bavaria says, with all due respect, bah!
Enough of this silly nationalistic prattle! First of all, we built the FIRST
Roman empire...and disposed of it (in a proper and sanitary fashion) when we
were finished with it. Be forewarned; history has a way of repeating itself.
Secondly, it is only because of our responsability for the whole "communism"
thing (started by a couple of grad students at Illuminati University, in a
prank that quickly got WAY out of hand) that we bothered to put Russia back
together at all. Well, that and because the cabal really likes Faberge eggs.
> getting to Lancaster, PA, on the other hand, is not far off
> On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
yes, going underground is the cheapest way to shield your buildings. building
them on the surface and installing screens and lead plates, etc, would be a
pain, but would give you a colony on the surface (i don't see why anyone would
need one, but i suppose it's nice to have the option).
mars will need underground habitats until it has a proper atmosphere, which
may or may not ever happen.
> War tends to require lots of
why? it only requires excursions outside because you have to go outside to get
between your cities and his cities. now, in the early stages of colonisation
of a planet this is a likely scenario, as the habitats will be far apart and
not connected by many subsurface tunnels (just main rail tunnels, not hugely
useful for a surprise attack).
however, this does not mean that the fighting will all be on the surface; a
valid tactic might be to get into the target area, go to ground in the
outlying tunnels etc, and then assault the habitat itself.
later, when the planet is riddled with tunnels (for mining, farming,
communication, etc - think The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (iirc)), you
will be able to run your troops in by the tunnels, never having to go onto the
surface at all.
thus, on early-stage planets, your plans would be motivated by the need
to get on top of the target quickly and get underground; you would be wary of
fighting surface engagements, but if you were a defender, you would try hard
to keep the other guy on the surface, where the sun is providing free
ortillery support. however, tunnel fighting would still be common.
in later-stage planets, the tunnel-fighting would be the rule. your
troops would still need enviro suits, as the tunnels are unlikely to be
pressurised, but the radiation problem would not be so bad.
> The effects were meant to represent not nessicarily
not a bad idea. perhaps they only fight at night, much like trying to
fight / survive in the desert. that or very heavy rotation of personnel.
> Remember that one of the most talked about problems with getting
i assume that if man is roaming the stars on a daily basis, this problem has
largely been solved.
Tom
> On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
ah, but that was because the russians made the terrible mistake of not
integrating media coverage into their military plans. think of interstellar
opinion when NABC News 24 (aka the Information Ministry) runs
a series of hour-long programmes on the victims of the latest turkish
atrocity. no advanced industrial nation can survive a prolonged trade embargo
...
> > getting to Lancaster, PA, on the other hand, is not far off
i thought it might be philadelphia, home of cream cheese.
> Or Powered Armor.
a slightly more worrying scenario - i usually forget my HAMR when i go
to
cons ...
Tom
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> At 13:40 30/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> > > ha! as if i was worried about some two-bit turkish ruffians :-)
They didn't after we whacked the barbarian Romanovs back into the stone age,
why should they care about some other twerps? We ain't Inner Colonies, so the
UN doesn't interfere.
> getting to Lancaster, PA, on the other hand, is not far off
That's what I get for not looking at e-mail addy. PA is Pennsylvania.
Or Powered Armor.
> On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> At 13:40 30/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
I was just thinking about this - having a wrap-around table, so to
speak. It'd make weapon ranges a bit odd, and would take some getting used to,
but it would have some good effects: it would end the extremely gamish
'hugging of the table edge' phenomenom that crops up every once in a while.
You'd be doing terrible things to the geometry of an ovoid/spherical
asteroid, 'unfolding' it onto a flat rectangular table, but that cant be
avoided, really...Although the math nuts among us might entertain themselves
by coming up with formulas to describe what happens to movement & fire along
the edges of the table, which would of nessescity be the most distorted.
Having FT battles 'alongside' your DS/SG asteroid battle would be very
cool. You'd just have to watch that your ortillery didn't break the asteroid
up while you still had troops on it...(unlikely, but interesting...)
Maybe I'll write up an asteroid-based scenario and inflict it on my
gaming group sometime soon, then send an AAR to the list.
> On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Brian Burger wrote:
systems
> tend to the most stable state. a mixture of fuel and oxidiser is less
I know. Just a really interesting image...
> > In vacumn worlds, DFFGs would have hugely increased ranges, as well.
Having more than one planetoid on table would be interesting, although you'd
need big tables.
A planetoid that's (say) 2km x 2km x 2km will 'fold out' or 'unroll' to
(exceedingly roughly) 80" x 80" - a fair sized table all by itself.
A bigger (but not huge) 4km x 2km x 2km planetoid works out to about 120"
x 80" - probably somewhat smaller than this (my math skills can
charitably be described as exceedingly rusty) Either way, that's a very large
table.
One planetoid per table, but with multiple tables in the room, and rules for
'jumping' the space in between? (of course, don't forget that in Real
Life, asteroids/etc are millions of km apart, usually. bit far to jump)
There are 'binary' asteroids out there, I believe, either equal sized
'binaries' or asteroids than have their own 'moons'. there's where the abilty
of PA to put itself in low orbit from low grav planetoids would come in
handy...
Just some ideas,
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> ah, but that was because the russians made the terrible mistake of not
And not having a spacefleet capable of handling the entire Deep Space Fleet
and two Sector Fleets at the same time, nor a garisson that can deal with an
armored corps and 4 mechanized corps.
> interstellar opinion when NABC News 24 (aka the Information Ministry)
runs
> a series of hour-long programmes on the victims of the latest turkish
Next time you refer to good Greeks and Armenians as "Turks". . . Turks
are either mercenaries, or alternately, Islamic Federation armored formations.
> atrocity. no advanced industrial nation can survive a prolonged trade
South Africa. And remember, the NRE has resources of several planets to play
with. What would we miss out on? The latest drek from the NAC movie industry?