[GZG] FT but off the wall and a little OT]

Has anyone spread sheeted the weapons (power, range etc.) acceleration,
power plant, shield effect of different sci-fi ships?  If so were?

  Thanks
    Andy
> [quoted text omitted]

Not sure what you mean, though I found this site has a rather drawn out
comparison of ST to SW. Purely bogus, IMNSHO. However, he states it's
slightly tongue-in-cheek.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/

You have to start with a mega-watt in this galaxy means the same thing
as one that's far, far away, and I have to say, not necessarily.

Unfortunately, any fictional ship starts from it's own set of assumptions
that probably won't match any others. Dean's cross-over games are major
exercises in optimism. I'm in awe of how successful he is at it. ;->=

The following show the much more common size/image comparison, though
the author of the first sez about what I just did(finally read that paragraph)
;->=
http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison.xhtml
http://www.merzo.net/

The_Beast

Andy wrote on 04/10/2006 11:54:26 AM:

> Has anyone spread sheeted the weapons (power, range etc.)

> Doug Evans wrote:

> Not sure what you mean, though I found this site has a rather drawn out
Yes, but the above referenced site discusses more than just ships. The site
has essays ranging from political systems to command and control. Let's face
it, an empire that spans a thousand thousand worlds, can communicate
instantaneously on galactic distances, and has the technical

ability and political will to build a space station capable of destroying a
planet with a single blast of energy, would be able to wipe

out the United Federation of Planets in short order.

-Mike

Mike wrote on 04/11/2006 12:18:34 PM:

> Let's face it, an empire that...

has space fighters that can be taken out with hand-operated weapons, and
a
fighter-in-the-flying-bridge making a major warship crash into another,
makes any comparison pretty silly.

I didn't say that the numbers said one thing or another; I said the whole
discussion was silly. I play with toy spaceships on a flat plane; I'm only
saying it's not my kind of silliness. I use PSB to justify limitations of
rules; every time somebody takes the PSB serious, and argues counter examples,
my eyes roll up into my head.

It's not pretty? Ok, that's enough to quash it. It doesn't make sense? IT
NEVER MADE SENSE.

On the other hand, Brin is a bu**head.

And I still say the only way to have our kind of space battles is to assume
immediate objectives too important not to accept a fair fight.

I'll hush up now, as that's more than enough to keep the list going and avoid
'ping' posts.

The_Beast

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lDoug Evans wrote:

> has space fighters that can be taken out with hand-operated weapons,
I don't recall a single Imperial fighter being destroyed by a weapon

without a computer assisted targeting system.

> and a fighter-in-the-flying-bridge making a major warship crash into
We do see a fighter impact an ISD in ROTJ, but we can hardly assume that the
impact of a single fighter was the cause of the collision that followed
shortly thereafter. The ISD had already taken tremendous damage, enough to
lose shields. We even see the destruction of a sensor

array on screen. So to name the cause as a single fighter craft impact is
simply ignoring so much else.

> I use PSB to justify limitations of rules;
The discussion on the site isn't about rules or PSB. It's about analysis of
what is seen on screen and extrapolating from there. It's not about explaining
the inner workings of the technology, but taking a careful look at what is
present on screen and placing that information within a certain context. Now,
where this discussion could intersect a discussion on rules is of great
interest to me. If one wants to run a game with the flavor of a certain
background, one must understand the parameters of the background.

> every time somebody takes the PSB serious, and argues counter
Well, if you're GMing a capital ship scenario set in the ST universe, ships
should maneuver in wide sweeping arcs and gain some benefit from flying in
formation, range should matter, and shields should be of supreme importance.
If they're not, I'm going to roll my eyes and walk away from the game.
Similarly, in a game set in the SW universe, capital ships shouldn't have to
bother with maneuver, range shouldn't matter much, and target selection should
be of supreme importance.

-Mike

Did not intend to start that whole SW vs ST thing. The important thing in any
scenario built around SciFi movies is that it looks cool and is fun. It is
nice to put things on the table that have a look and feel that is familiar.
The numbers I am looking for are just a way to get a handle on that feel. I
will post what I find on:
  http://groups.msn.com/ConfusionCentral411

Also take a look at the review posted at

http://groups.msn.com/6mmWargames/fullthrust.msnw

Thanks Andy

> From: Michael Sarno <msarno@epix.net>

> not about explaining the inner workings of the technology, but taking

> within a certain context.

> eyes and walk away from the game. Similarly, in a game set in the SW

> apter@bellsouth.net wrote:

> Did not intend to start that whole SW vs ST thing.
Yeah, well, the Empire would wipe the Federation UNLESS the crew from TNG
appear in their Gargoyles alter egos. Then, Xanatos and Demona clearly have
the advantage.

-Mike