[GZG] [FT] Scale in the Tuffleyverse

9 posts · Jan 2 2007 to Jan 21 2007

From: John Brewer <jbrewer@w...>

Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:11:03 GMT

Subject: [GZG] [FT] Scale in the Tuffleyverse

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSome of the most
frequently asked questions on the List are...

How far can a FTL starship go in one jump?...

How far from a stellar or planetary gravity well must a starship be to make a
jump?...

and How far is a MU?

I've been trying to come up with answers based upon canonical information,
scientific data, and player convenience.

I know from a footnote on page 44 of FB1 that the longest controlled
jump was 7.328 lightyears - slightly over 2 parsecs - so I surmised that
military ships can jump about 2 parsecs. And since distances on FT maps are
listed in parsecs, as are results from trig equations for star system
distances posted by Winchell Chung, it's convenient to round out performance
for Tuffleyverse jumpdrives in parsecs rather than lightyears.

I made this point in a posting in July of '05 -
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200507/msg00368.html - or if the link
doesn't work, search the author index of July'05 for "John Brewer", it was my
only post that month.

People ask how far a MU is because they have plans for a scenario involving a
battle near a planet, and they want to know how big to make the planet. A
consensus here on the List is that a MU is about 1000km. The problem with this
is that the source for star system & planetary
data for the Tuffleyverse is the "GZG star list with planetary data" -
http://wam.umd.edu/~ddr/ - and the planetary diameters are measured in
MILES.

Now it stands to reason that scenarios with battles near planets is that
the high-value strategic targets will be "garden" worlds with standard
atmospheres. They range in diameters from just under 8000 miles to just over
12000 miles. So for player convenience, I propose that a MU be a variable
between 1700 & 2600 miles, averaging at 2000 miles.

THAT way, a player can use an inverted 9-inch paper plate to represent a
4.5 inch "garden" planet and its optimum orbit distance. The base of the
starship would track along the edge of the plate while in orbit, for ease of
measuring. But since an orbit velocity of 4.5 SHOULDN'T be written in movement
orders, this should be a variable too: If the planet diameter is less than
10000 miles, the orbit velocity should be 4
- if more than 10000 miles, the orbit velocity should be 5.

Now, how close & how far away can a ship engage in FTL movement? According to
"Traveller", a starship should manoeuver out to about 100 diameters from any
object more than 1 mile in diameter, or risk misjump. So, for the average
"garden" planet, a ship should be 450 MU from the planet to safely engage the
jumpdrives.

The problem with this is Jim Webster's scenario on page 37 of More Thrust,
where the distance from orbit to safe jump distance is the width of the game
table. So in THAT scenario, the safe jump distance is closer to 10 diameters,
or 45 MU.

The problem with THAT is that the Tuffleyverse has pirate organizations
- BIG ones - like ORC & Actuarial Nightmare, who would find it next to
impossible to operate if they could only strike at ships that close to planets
with patrols nearby.

So here's a compromise...

Starships with CIVILIAN-built jumpdrives should manoeuver out to 100
diameters from any object more than 1 mile in diameter before engaging
jump.  If jump is engaged at less than that distance - in emergency or
miscalculation - the jumpdrive suffers an IMMEDIATE threshold check -
add +1 to the die roll for every 10 diameters short.

Starships with MILITARY jumpdrives should manoeuver out to 10 diameters
- at less than that distance, threshold check - add +1 to the die roll
for every 1 diameter short.

(This should preserve Jim Webster's scenario while giving the pirates their
"hunting grounds".)

Now, what about the system's star? Is it bound by the same
"100-diameter" rule?  In preparing for this post, I checked out websites
that let you build scale models of our solar system using basketballs,
peppercorns, pinheads, & marbles. I found that the distance from our sun to
the orbit of Pluto is about 4000 diameters of the sun, which is
about 40 AU.  THAT means that by coincidence 1 AU - the distance from
sun to Earth - is 100 solar diameters!  THAT must be where Marc Miller -
who helped design "Traveller" - got the idea for the "100-diameter"
rule.

But rather than use the straight-forward "100-diameter" rule for stars,
I could just rule that the safe jump distance for stars is the same as
the inner limit of the star's "biozone" - that's close enough.

(FYI, the inner limit biozone data, as well as the stellar gravity well
data in my July'05 posting, I got from an obscure sci-fi rpg called "Web
of Stars" from Web Games - I bought it FOR the star system data)

TYPE SIZE JUMP LIMIT [in AU]

O Ia 9.0 O Ib 8.0 O V 7.5

B Ia 7.0 B Ib 6.5 B II 6.0 B III 5.5 B IV 5.0 B V 4.5

A Ia 4.0 A Ib 3.8 A II 3.4 A III 3.0 A IV 2.8 A V 2.5

F Ia 2.2 F Ib 2.0 F II 1.9 F III 1.8 F IV 1.7 F V 1.6

G Ia 1.6 G Ib 1.5 G II 1.0 G III 0.9 G IV 0.8 G V 0.6 G VI 0.5

K Ia 0.4 K Ib 0.4 K II 0.3 K III 0.3 K IV 0.2 K V 0.2 K VI 0.1

M Ia 0.1 M Ib 0.1 M II 0.1 M III 0.1 M V 0.04 M VI 0.03

Dwarfs 0.1
Superbrights     +2.0
Pulsars 0.8 Neutron Stars 0.6 Protostars 0.04

I'm getting tired of typing, so I invite your questions & comments.

From: John Brewer <jbrewer@w...>

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 01:02:17 GMT

Subject: [GZG] [FT] Scale in the Tuffleyverse

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lNow that the List
is back up, here's a post that was lost to the void.

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:56:54 -0500

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Scale in the Tuffleyverse

> I know from a footnote on page 44 of FB1 that the longest controlled

Special FTL scouts can jump 2+ parsecs...or can vanish in the attempt.
Normal warships probably can't jump that far, certainly not without risk. You
might also have an effect where smaller ships can jump farther than
larger ships--say, a DD can jump 1.5 parsec while a Jeanne d'Arc can
only manage 0.5 parsec at a time.

> People ask how far a MU is because they have plans for a scenario

Or 100km, depending on what time scale you think is reasonable. In that case,
you could use one edge of the table as the planet's surface.

> The problem with THAT is that the Tuffleyverse has pirate organizations

The ORC isn't a pirate organization, it's more of a coalition of colonies
which realized their parent nations and the UN weren't going to defend them.
The colonies certainly indulged in a bit of unauthorized requisitioning of the
parent nations' ships and other assets, but it wasn't really piracy.

From: Robert N Bryett <rbryett@g...>

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:24:33 +1100

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Scale in the Tuffleyverse

> How far is a MU?

There's an interesting discussion on the Exodus Project web-site
about using realistic engines in tactical space combat games. It's
not for the math-phobic, but there's lots of stuff on how thrust,
time and distance fit together. The author decided on a 15-minute
turn-length (so that his FT and Dirtside timescales would match),
resulting in an MU of about 81 kilometres.

For our Beltwar games, I adopted an MU about 83km so that 12mu = 1000km. This
distance scale means there's no need to put out model planets; just treat one
edge of the table as the planetary atmosphere
and rule that anyone who goes off in anything other than a re-entry
vehicle burns up... You could mark a curved edge if you want to be picky,
especially for a smaller body like a moon. Dwarf planets like Ceres, or large
asteroids (Pallas, Vesta etc.) can be represented by
papier-mâché "scale" models.

Best regards, Robert Bryett rbryett@gmail.com

> On 21/01/2007, at 01:02 , John Brewer wrote:

> Now that the List is back up, here's a post that was lost to the void.

From: Samuel Penn <sam@b...>

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:16:22 +0000

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Scale in the Tuffleyverse

> On Sunday 21 January 2007 02:56, Laserlight wrote:

> >People ask how far a MU is because they have plans for a scenario

I like 1000km since it allows you to use planets on the table as reasonable
obstacles. The planet is big enough to use as cover, and the gravity well goes
out far enough to affect movement. You do need a reasonable sized table
however if you want some action outside the gravity well.

If the planet is one edge of the table, it might as well not be there at all
(though you could have a gravity effect).

If it's much more than 1000km, then even Earth sized worlds start to become
merely a point of interest rather than a major focus of the 'terrain'. At
3000km, a 4" world doesn't give much cover.

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:23 -0500

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Scale in the Tuffleyverse

> I like 1000km since it allows you to use planets on the table

Depends on what your thrust is. If 1mu = 1g/turn, the effective gravity
well is avctually quite thin.

From: Samuel Penn <sam@b...>

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:41:30 +0000

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Scale in the Tuffleyverse

> On Sunday 21 January 2007 20:07, Laserlight wrote:

The figures I used back when I worked it out had 8 thrust = 1g.

From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:24:07 +0000

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Scale in the Tuffleyverse

> On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:41:30PM +0000, Samuel Penn wrote:

You can set any two of the three parameters: MU size, turn length, and
acceleration level. (Many listers have settled on 1 thrust = 1 g for
convenience.) Once you do that, the third parameter falls out automatically.
There's a longer explanation at

http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200308/msg00415.html

but I think the most popular scale has generally been 1MU=1000km, 1 thrust=1
g, and one turn = a little over five minutes.

From: Samuel Penn <sam@b...>

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:26:30 +0000

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Scale in the Tuffleyverse

> On Sunday 21 January 2007 22:24, Roger Burton West wrote:

The problem I have with 1T=1g is that you remove pretty much all need for
aerodynamics and planets become far less of an interesting problem. Why have
specialised landing shuttles, when pretty much
any ship with 2g+ acceleration can hover above and land on a planet
with ease. No more having to orbit a planet and only being able
to supply limited ortillery support - just hover directly above
the battlefield for as long as you like.

btw, first space game I designed (before I found FT and switched
to that) got acceleration correct - you only moved half your
acceleration in the turn it was applied. Book keeping is zero, since the rule
is applied immediately you accelerate.

Your acceleration also changed throughout the battle, since as you used up
reaction mass, your ship got less massive and acceleration increased. All the
maths was at design time so that book keeping was minimal.