_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRichard said:
"In FT, it is perfectly reasonable for a measurement to be taken from a ship
to anything on the table for each firecon mounted.......This makes smaller
ships chasing each other through asteroid swarms a bit
interesting--
do I trust my eyeballing, or measure the distance to the object that I hope to
fly by."
--------
Problem: Do unarmed civilian ships that lack fire control radar smack into
asteroids? Wouldn't asteroid belt racers (or other fast civilian ships that
don't NEED firecons) be able to see things anyway?
Sensors are a 'hidden' aspect of FT mostly (there are some sop rules, but at
most on-table ranges inside weapons ranges, you can see everything) and
we fly around at arbitrarily large speeds without fear of consequences, so I
submit that the ship must already have good sensors.
Now, mechanically, if you want to limit pre-measuring, the method you
suggest tends to work. But it isn't based on anything particularly limiting in
the ship designs because all ships must have at least reasonable sensors.
------
Allan: "Dice rolling isn't a skill"
------
Never said it was. Said that dice luck or lack thereof is already present as
are a variety of other aspects. Why single out difficulty eyeballing distances
as one aspect to mitigate without targeting others?
------
Allan: It smacks of game designers building their own particular group play
style bias into their rules, and those that allow pre-measuring should
be stamped down as having badwrongfun.
-------
Although I take the valid point here, equally people could claim (and I know
some who do) that the dice are far too swingy to be reasonable in Stargrunt
(that 1 on the ELITE die comes up rather alarmingly often), so why not allow
people to use a more deterministic method? People misunderstand
communications from other players - why not roll back turns and replay
them when this happens, etc?
The point to me is that games already inherently contain a number of things
you could pick at. They also contain a limited range of choices that the
designers intend you to make. They also typically (if you aren't using complex
sensor rules like SFB for instance) provide you with more information than
your actual ship crew or infantryman would have (God's eye view plus some
magical moment by moment status of the universe). So when we
pick other *artificial* constraints, like a lack of pre-measuring, we're
just trying to balance this information out and inflict yet another choice
on you. You don't see this as a valid designer choice - I don't see why
it is any less valid than any other (most disadvantage one style of player or
player aptitiude over another anyway).
If you want to pre-measure, I want fog of war. Both will slow down the
games, but if you want to make up for a defficiency in distance estimation
(which as I say simulates sensor limits), then I want to introduce the chances
for deception and legerdemain and the uncertainty of fog of war. I
don't think either of those cases is more or less valid - both change
the game's limits, both change the player's choices.
So let me cast back the whole 'why not allow pre-measuring' aspect at
you -
it does in fact change the balance of the game, which in theory is tested and
meant to be a certain way. Nothing precludes you changing it, but you'll alter
the game in some ways and change balance in some outcomes. So why is one
change to balance or outcome better? Why is having one choice in a ruleset
better or more mandatory than another?
I agree tradition plays a role here. But I don't think I can see allowing
pre-measuring as not affecting the game and I don't think I can see
offering it as an alternative as not affecting balance somewhat. And I can't
see this change as having any special privilege of value or legitemacy over
others which could alter balance and affect outcomes.
OTOH, having said that, whatever you do in your group that floats your boat
and sets the balance *your group* wants is fine with me. But that also
includes nerfing fighters, having soapies and fighterfests, introducing FoW,
or whatever. I just don't see the campaign for allowing pre-measuring as
any different than any other suggestion to change a game limit or rule.
----------
Allan:
Which was exactly my point. Not allowing pre-measuring is often touted
as avoiding munchkinism. But you can't wipe out munckinism.
----------
Sorry, I had missed that if you said it. I agree with you. OTOH, my own
experience is that pre-measuring has led me into quite a few games with
munchkinism present (directly attributable to pre-measuring).
The most egregious is in stargrunt where people try to lurk outside of key
range bands by making movement judgements down to the meter or where they try
to be just outside of close assault range or the like or just barely inside
command radii.
SG, particularly (and likely FT too) has a lot of hard boundaries and bands
and measurements *and the real world is much fuzzier*. In the real world, I
could not stop 300.5m from a 'Green' unit and be absolutely unconcerned about
damage where moving to 399.5m made me vulernable (although, being green, not
terribly). The 6" command and burst radii are equally arbitrary. Since the
game inflicts all of these sorts of arbitrary hard limits on what are not (in
real world equivalents) that sort of situation, allowing
pre-measuring allows the sorts of 'gaming' of the system (and encourages
it
- if pre-measuring is present in the rules, people think it is
encouraged, much like point systems foster a notion of balance that is
illusory) that really feel cheesy at the table.
In a good group who wouldn't pre-measure just to avoid fire arcs or to
plot moves to pinpoint precision, I could live with it. It does eliminate one
set of judgment errors a commander could actually make in the real world and
it takes advantage of artificial hard borders in the game that don't exist in
the real universe, but I could live with it. If we had a player who was
*seriously* impeded by a disability of any sort, we'd probably adapt to that
since it would be obvious he wasn't just gaming the system.
But as a generality, like a point system, pre-measuring can encourage
people to think in cheesy ways (innocently, but because they still see it as a
game and not a sim.... they look for advantage).
TomB
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Personally I think that limiting premeasuring in games is a bit overly anal.
In addition to my feeling that it is trying to force somethign overly serious
into a game, there is also the argument that modern sensors and plotting,
planning, etc, make premeasuring perfectly reasonable and not just in a
limited fassion.
When you consider that current radar systems can easily tracks hundreds if not
thousands of objects simultaneously then I would imagine that futuristic
sensors would have exceded this to the point of offering nearly complete
situational awareness in real time. Even the common infantry soldier with a
pretty much normal tech level in FT should be
able to benefit from range-finders, battle comps and relays to sensor
nets in orbit or from aerial support and drones.
Premeasuring should be the norm not the exception.
-Eli
Well said!
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:18 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lEli:
"When you consider that current radar systems can easily tracks hundreds if
not thousands of objects simultaneously then I would imagine that futuristic
sensors would have exceded this to the point of offering nearly complete
situational awareness in real time. Even the common infantry soldier with a
pretty much normal tech level in FT should be able to benefit from
range-finders, battle comps and relays to sensor nets in orbit or from
aerial support and drones."
And yet, we manage to blow up the wrong targets, miss targets of opportunity,
etc. There are a lot of aspects of friction on the battlefield that the game
(SG or DS) does not model explicitly. You could easily construe that cases of
failed measurement resulted from these sorts of frictions that DO impede even
the modern battlefield. In fact, information overload is one of the key
dangers of the modern situation.
Also, in FT terms: No FTL Comms is there? (Not sure) If there aren't or they
aren't small enough to be on sensor platforms etc, then combat at fractional
light second distances will still be potentially problematic. Your sensor,
even assuming the enemy has not jammed it up, whited it out, confused or foxed
it, or absorbed its emissions (we're talking about active fire control here),
can still at best only tel you where it thought something was some
time ago (that time being 1 outbound leg + 1 inbound leg for the
reflected signal). It also needs multiple bounces (and the computer smarts to
be sure
these all came from the same bogey which are non-trivial esp in an EW
environment) to establish an approximate track.
At fractional light second distances (assume a 10,000 km mu.... 30 mu =
300,000 km = 1 light second), that position uncertainty is sizable. Take a
400m vessel moving at 20 mu (200,000 kph). In two seconds, it could move just
under 2 km (or 5 vessel lengths). And that's if it doesn't thrust. And that's
if you assume ships move by vector movement. Cinematic is worse.
Sure, at 6 mu and speed 6, you need a pretty high thrust, good EW, a super
stealthy hull, or a lot of prayer to not be locked up solid by fire control.
But at moderate to longer ranges, and at higher speeds (and doubly so in
cinematic 'physics'), you aren't going to have as much position certainty as
you think and the certainty of the enemy's track will be even lesser. And the
time lag for combat at longer distances will mean that you will only have a
'cloud of probability' about target location.
Now, a lot of this makes assumptions about:
- Needing to use active firecons vs. passive sensors for firing
solutions (seems to be GZGverse standard)
- Effects of EW, stealth hulls, etc. (not really documented much in FT
as it
pertains to sensors, but if we accept no pre-measure, then we can
rationalize these effects as part of that)
- Size of an MU and thus speed of movement and ranges to target (the
arguments I make above do not work for a 100 km mu)
- Movement model in play/Physics model
But all in all, I think you'll only ever have a good approximation of where
the enemy is. A 'cloud of probability'. That's enough to justify measuring
uncertainty to me.
And let me toss this back at you 'know where everything is down to the meter'
folks:
If you can and do know where ships are to within very small uncertainties *WHY
DO THE WEAPONS EVER MISS*? They should really never do so in those
cases - even damage should be somewhat predictable because the greater
your certainty of enemy position and track and orientation, the greater your
ability to hit systems you want on his ship.
I think the mere fact we've got all the combat rolls implies positional
uncertainty. And thus, a no-measuring stance is perfectly defensible.
Tom B
PS - I concede groups should do what they want, but don't assault the
'realism' of not allowing pre-measuring when there are so many other
places to batter at the hidden uncertainties beneath game granularity.....
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
The typical solution is to not fly merchant ships through asteroid swarms.
Just flying in from outside the ecliptic will avoid all but severe erratic
orbits, which never occur in swarms. For the rare situation where maneuvering
through an asteroid swarm is a must, there are vessel traffic services to
provide the needed precise navigation information.
As for running through aseroid swarms, any ship that intentionally passes
celestial objects at small multiples of a ship length, while travelling at a
high relative velocity, is NOT included among the ships that do not need
firecons.
There is a very large difference between knowing something is there and
knowing exactly where it is. The sensors that search for stuff are
deliberately vague in both bearing and range. The reasons are
pretty simple-- scan time and power. Getting a good range requires a
shorter pulse train, but that short pulse train has illuminate the object with
enough energy to get a measurable return, so higher range resolution requires
more power. Better bearing resolution requires a narrower pattern, but the
antenna must be pointed at the object long enough to detect it, so it takes
longer to search the surrounding space. What generates errors in both range
and bearing is that the antenna is being continuously steered. The purpose of
search sensors is not to exactly locate an object, but to vector in other
platforms, or cue up the tracking sensors.
The track while scan feature of phased array radars is actually interrupting
the scan on a regular basis to update tracking
> On Thursday 07 May 2009 18:02:46 Tom B wrote:
Realistically, 'asteroid belt racing' would be rather boring unless you tried
very hard to make it otherwise.
So far, none of the probes sent through the asteroid belt by NASA have had any
real ability to detect and avoid asteroids, and they didn't hit anything. I
seem to recall that the closest any came to anything sizable was in the order
of hundreds of thousands of km, but I can't find a reference for that.
Civilian ships would probably very rarely go anywhere considered dangerous.
Possibly, serious collisions with very small but fast
rocks/sand grains may be considered unlikely and therefore too
expensive to try to avoid. That's what insurance is for...
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRichard:
"The efficacy of search sensors in FT is proven by the fact that it requires
special circumstances for anything present in the area not to be featured on
the map."
TomB:
Touche -- nicely done. As I infer positional uncertainty from the dice
rolling from weapons, you infer some positional certainty from the presence of
models. That sword appears to have two edges.
----------
I noticed this morning my prior math was off.... so let's fix it:
500m ship (easy to work with). 10K km MU. 20 min turn. Range 30 MU = 300K
km. Speed 20 MU/turn = 200K km/20 min = 600K km/hr.
So, an active scan on this ship has to cover 60 MU (60K km, which is
1/5th
of a light second). During that time, the ship will have covered 33.3 km.
That's a sizable degree of uncertainty for a 500m ship. (Note: I am aware that
this is how far the ship moves, not how variable its endpoint is, but this
just show's how critical it would be to have an accurate track...)
If we assume the ship can change its speed by 4 mu/turn, the actual
endpoint
variability in a two-dimensional setting (3-dimensional settings are
heretical) is 80,000 km/20 min = 240,000 km/hr. That means the endpoint
variability is 13.3 km. That's still a huge amount for a 500m ship -
that's 26 ship lengths.
That sort of variability seems to me to be adequately represented by measuring
limitations.:0)
Of course, how hard is it for weapons of the time to fill a 13.3 km spheroid
or off-spherical volume with sufficiently damaging fire? Hard to say.
If you drop to 1,000 km mu and leave turns at 20 minutes, you drop the size of
the spheroid to 1.33 km, which is still notable with a 500m ship, but a
significantly easier challenge. (If you scale down the time as well to a 2 min
turn, nothing changes).
If you drop to 100 km per mu, and stay at a 20 minute turn, you end up with a
0.133 km spheroid which isn't very challenging when your ship is 500m.
So a lot depends on assumptions. But I still don't think you can (necessarily
without knowing what an mu is, how long a turn is, and so on)
say that pre-measuring is inherently justified because we can magically
locate the target to a high degree of precision.
And Indy, I put DS and SG in the same sort of category, so where I mention
one I usually mean the other. The pre-measuring I've seen in ground
games has led to things I wish I'd never seen at the game table they were so
cheese-laden.
T.