Some time ago, I promised to post some stuff regarding the guidelines we are
putting together for anyone who feels like writing some fiction (or anything
else) based in the "FT Universe". Well, I've just been knocking together some
general background stuff (some of which will be going into the Fleet Book) on
ships and shipboard life in the "official" (ah, that
word again!!) GZG background - it is all "fluff", but hopefully it will
be the kind of thing that will help to flesh out the FT universe a little, and
might give some ideas to any budding writers out there...
[Yes, various bits are culled from David Weber, David Feintuch, C. J.
Cherryh and loads of other sources....]
LIFE ABOARD SHIP:
Space is REALLY, REALLY BIG. And really empty. In fact, it is even bigger (and
emptier) than Canada... This incomprehensible bigness and emptiness does bad
things to the human
mind. It is bad enough in-system, even though you can still see that one
star is bigger than the rest and this gives you some tenuous link to those
grubby little balls of dirt we call planets. Out in interstellar space,
however, things get really empty. You spend a LOT of time out between the
stars, in the Deep Cold, drifting along sub-light between Jumps while
the ship and your body get ready for the next dislocation. Even if your ship
is
part of a fleet or convoy, you are probably half a light-year apart, and
you won't see them again till you make the little corrective jumps at the end
of the trip. Something in your mind keeps saying that if the Jump doesn't work
then you'll just keep drifting, and maybe if you are really lucky then your
mummified remains will get to see another star in a thousand years or so.....
Service on a starship, whether Navy or merchant, is much like that on a
20th Century submarine - long periods of little to do except routine
chores and drills, close proximity of other personnel, little privacy and
absolutely nothing to see outside. It is accepted that crews need as much
recreational opportunity as possible, and as such efforts are made in most
forces to channel their energies into non-disruptive hobbies and
interests while clamping down hard on alcohol abuse (certain amounts are quite
legal
while off-duty, as anti-intoxicant medication is freely available and
very effective) and "recreational pharmaceuticals". Even the average lowly
spacehand is generally well educated and technically adept, which at times can
be a mixed blessing for the Petty Officers who maintain order "below decks".
Day-to-day life aboard ship is generally made as pleasant as possible
for the crew, although cost and space limitations obviously affect this to a
greater extent in some ship classes that others. Ships designed for
long-range patrol duties and extended independant operations will often
have better crew facilities that those that are intended for operations closer
to main fleet bases. While it is generally accepted that a comfortable and
happy crew is an efficient crew, differing national
doctrines and attitudes affect the provision of crew facilities - NAC
and
FSE vessels are (in general) particularly well-appointed and their
designers have devoted considerable effort to crew comfort and recreational
facilities; those of the NSL are rather more utilitarian (though not
unpleasant) while many of the ESU ships are positively spartan and cramped.
On most warships, the ratings will live in communal quarters, while Petty
Officers and above will have individual staterooms, though on some ships
junior and cadet officers may share wardroom quarters. The Captain will
usually have a suite consisting of main (sleeping) cabin, day cabin
(normally with direct access to Bridge and/or TacOps) and adjoining
quarters for his/her personal steward.
Crew recreational facilities, as mentioned, vary from ship to ship and
nation to nation, but a well-outfitted vessel will have gymnasium
facilities (both zero and one-gee), holovid theatre and various sports
and lounge areas. Food for both crew and officers is generally as good and
varied as possible, using fresh produce from the ship's hydroponics systems to
supplement frozen, dried and recycled ingredients. Even the smallest
scoutships (sometimes with only three or four crew) are usually outfitted with
conventional galley facilities, as prepacked rations on extended missions have
long since been found to be extremely detrimental to crew morale.
Almost all major navies have both male and female personnel serving together,
and the general breaking down of many taboos and predjudices among Earth
cultures over the preceding two centuries has removed a lot of the problems
that could otherwise have arisen. Crew of both sexes (and all orientations)
share the same accommodations and facilities, and though "fraternisation"
between crew members is not actually officially encouraged it is generally
accepted provided it does not compromise ship operation or security; trying to
prohibit it has been found to cause far more problems that a tolerant
attitude. "Attention", whether welcomed or not, that strays over the
demarcation between officers and enlisted personnel IS still seen as a
potential problem, and is officially prohibited while on board ship.
-----------------------------------------
GRAVITY AND COMPENSATORS: Gravitic Compensators allow ships to manoeuvre at
the high Gee rates necessary for combat situations without reducing the crew
to red smears on the bulkheads, but though they are effective at this they are
far from
perfect - they cannot maintain an exact one-gee field perpendicular to
the deckplates while the ship is being thrown through battle turns and trying
to evade incoming missiles. Thus, moving around inside a ship under battle
manoeuvring conditions is difficult and dangerous; the only personnel that
will normally attempt it are damage-control parties, who are suited and
armoured to withstand being thrown into bulkheads and fittings as the
internal gee-field fluctuates.
Operations crew in vital areas such as the Bridge, TacOps, Engineering and
Gunnery are cushioned in shock couches and protected by crash frames. All the
crew, whether at combat stations or (in the case of personnel not required
while in action) strapped down in their quarters, will experience some very
strange and nauseating sensations as the compensators try their best to cancel
the manoeuvre forces; to the human inner ear, the effects
are like a high-speed elevator moving in several directions at once, or
the worst fairground rides. Most personnel adapt to the situation fairly
quickly, but some do not....
Out of combat, the Compensators are used to effectively negate the much
gentler gee effects of normal manoeuvring, while grav-generators in the
deck plates provide an approximately one-gee environment for movement
around much of the ship. There are still areas that are not provided with grav
plates, sometimes deliberately but more often as a cost and power saving
measure; such areas will include boat bays, cargo holds and some
engineering spaces, as well as specific zero-gee recreation areas and
similar.
Corridors and compainionways linking zero-gee and one-gee parts of the
ship
are provided with "Gee-Locks", special zones of passageway (usually with
doors at each end) along whose length the gravity gradient is steadily
increased; this helps to prevent personnel suddenly discovering that the
"ceiling" of the zero-gee space they've just come from has become the
floor
of the one-gee zone they are entering, with the consequent risk to
health and of the amusement of other crew members.
SHIP'S OPERATION:
Standard timekeeping on warships follows Earth-standard 24 hour days,
divided into six 4 - hour watches; First Watch is 0000-0400, Second from
0400-0800, then 0800-1200, 1200-1600, 1600-2000 and 2000-0000. Sixth
Watch is designated the "Evening" watch, and First and Second the "Night"
watches. The day-night pattern is enhanced by lowered illumination in
non-essential areas during the night watches, unless under combat
conditions.
Much of the ship's operation both in and out of combat is handled by
pseudo-intelligent computer systems, but actual command remains in the
hands of human officers; experiments with allowing the computers to run the
whole show, especially in battle, have generally resulted in utter destruction
to BOTH forces. The capacity of a human Captain to think laterally and to
outguess his or her opponent is most often the deciding factor in an otherwise
even match, and attempts to replicate this by using
true AIs (Artificial Intelligences, truly self-aware computers rather
than just close simulations of sentience) have universally ended in disaster.
Much the same applies to the small "fighter" craft, which usually have a crew
of between one and three depending on type; experiments with totally
unmanned "drone" fighters have proven that, although cost-effective in
some situations, they are no match for the instincts of a human pilot. Despite
the high attrition rate of fighter crews in combat, there is never any
shortage of willing recruits attracted by the "glamour" of being a fighter
jock.
Warship crew complements are not all that large, as most ship functions
require relatively little manpower (except when something goes wrong). A fair
proportion of a ship's complement will be engineering crew for
damage-control purposes, embarked Marines and ship's security troops,
plus cooks, medical personnel and the like. To take a typical example, an NAC
Victoria class Battleship has a full complement of 14 Officers (of which 8 are
Line officers, and the rest department specialists), 20 Petty Officers and 112
Ratings, plus an embarked Marine Combat Team of 36 troops. Of the 112 ordinary
crewmen and women, 24 are "operations" crew, 56 are assigned to engineering
and DC functions while the remainder are general and supernumary personnel
(galley staff, sickbay orderlies, auxiliary craft crew, general deckhands
etc.). Under extreme circumstances, one command officer and a handful of
operations staff and engineering personnel could theoretically operate the
ship, albeit with little capacity to respond to damage taken in battle.
Weapons fire direction is generally at the direct orders of the Captain from
his combat station on the Bridge; in the case of his incapacitation it
devolves to the First Officer in TacOps. Individual weapon "turrets" and
defence installations on the hull are not "manned" as such, but are remotes
controlled from the Gunnery command centre; commands from the Captain are
relayed to Gunnery by the senior Tactical Officer's station on the bridge. The
Tactical Operations compartment (TacOps) acts as a collection and collation
point for sensor information and communications, which are then relayed to the
Captain's station in a condensed and useable form; TacOps is fully equipped to
take over as a reserve bridge and con the ship in the event of the main
command bridge being disabled.
In the event of imminent destruction or disabling of the ship, the crew can
abandon the vessel in a number of lifepods located around the hull
structure - all crew stations have a lifepod bay within easy reach, and
most ship designs provide enough for the entire complement plus additional
redundant pods in case some are lost to hull damage. Each pod is designed to
hold between ten and twelve personnel, though up to twenty can be accommodated
in extreme circumstances. Outfitted with life support and recycling systems,
packaged emergency food and medical supplies and a rudimentary propulsion
system, plus a very powerful beacon and comms system, a standard lifepod can
keep its normal complement alive for approximately two weeks in reasonable
conditions, and then a maximum of another two weeks under steadily increasing
discomfort and unpleasantness.
--------------------------------------
SHIP ALERT STATES:
Alert States on NAC vessels (to take a typical example- most navies use
something very similar) are:
DOCKSIDE - used when ship is tied up to an orbital facility - most of
ship's systems powered down, and a skeleton watch crew maintained while the
remainder of the complement are permitted shore leave. Average time to
power up to Green status is three-four hours, not including recall of
off-ship crew members.
GREEN - general non-combat status used when vessel is travelling or in a
patrol orbit. All systems functional, but weapons and active defences are
under command lock. Standard rotation of duty watches for operations
personnel, none are suited-up. Average time to move to Yellow One status
is ten minutes.
YELLOW ONE - semi-alert status, with essential Bridge and Engineering
crew in open suits and modified watch rotation. Senior command officer
(Captain, First or Second Officer) on Bridge at all times. All offensive and
defensive systems powered-up, but still under command lock.
Non-operations
personnel on normal duties. Average time to move to Yellow Two status is ten
minutes.
YELLOW TWO - heightened alert: as Yellow One but all crew to combat
stations in open suits. Average time to move to Red status is three minutes.
RED - full combat alert status; all crew at combat stations, Bridge,
TacOps, Gunnery and Engineering personnel in sealed suits and locked into
crash frames, DC parties suited and on standby. Captain and Second Officer on
Bridge, First Officer in TacOps. All weapons systems command locks removed,
weapons held on Captain's voice command only. Internal
gee-plates
off, gravitic compensators and drive systems at full battle manoeuvring
readiness. Generally, Red status can be held for around six hours at a time
before serious degradation of crew efficiency through fatigue will become a
problem.
------------------------------------
JUMPSPACE TRAVEL: Interstellar travel is performed in a series of short (in
relative terms)
"jumps" through a timeless quasi-reality generally called Jumpspace.
Each jump (which may also be referred to as a Shift, Shoot or Transit) moves
the ship by anything from a few lightminutes to several lightyears*, depending
on the energy put into the drive at the moment of jump and the proximity of
the ship to gravitational influences - the nearer to a gravity well the
ship is when the drive is engaged, the shorter the resulting jump. There is a
definite limiting distance from any given gravity well that inhibits safe
jumping within it - a ship must move to outside this limit before
engaging the TK Drive or risk serious mishap (at best a misjump or drive
failure, at worst total destruction). The actual jump is perceived by the
ship's occupants as instantaneous, but leaves a deep subconscious memory of
disturbing change in the fabric of
reality - as though the recesses of the human mind can actually register
the transition that the conscious levels cannot. This effect causes nausea and
disorientation after the jump, which if untreated can last for several hours;
for this reason most Military crews use specialised drugs to
minimise the aftereffects and ensure that the ship is combat-ready as
fast as possible after jump emergence, especially if several jumps need to be
made in relatively quick succession. Civilian vessels and those on less
pressing schedules will spread out the jumps to perhaps one every couple of
days, and most personnel and passengers will undergo jump asleep in their
cabins with just a skeleton bridge crew overseeing the automatics conning the
jump. The fastest cycle possible is around one jump per six hours, but this
requires the latest Military drives and power plants along with the most
sophisticated jump navigation software and tremendous crew stamina, even with
chemical assistance. On average, naval vessels on most missions will make not
more than one jump per day. The longer the jump, the greater the potential
inaccuracy in both the distance travelled and the final emergence point. For
this reason, most interstellar journeys begin with a couple of short jumps
(necessary to fully clear the gravity well of the starting starsystem)
followed by a number of longer transits to bring the ship within a few
lightdays of the destination system. The vessel will then make a number of
successively shorter jumps, each of increasing accuracy, to place it as near
as possible to its eventual target. The final approach, under Normal Space
propulsion, can then take anything from a few hours to a few weeks depending
on the accuracy of the last jump insystem and how fine the jump navigator
dares to cut the gravitational limit. When moving a fleet of ships together,
the potential errors in the long
mid-course jumps mean that it is highly unlikely that all the fleet will
remain together throughout the journey - in fact at most of the
between-jump periods each ship will be completely isolated from the rest
by huge distances. For precise military operations, therefore, it is normal
practice for the fleet to re-assemble well out of the target system and
then proceed insystem in a succession of much shorter than normal jumps in
order to maintain some semblance of cohesive formation.
* The longest verified "planned" jump (ie: excluding random misjumps) to date
was in 2177, when the NAC experimental fast courier CNS Hyacinth attained a
realspace dispacement of 7.328 light years in a single Jumpspace transit. The
ship and its crew of five were unfortunately lost in an apparent misjump when
attempting to beat this record in the following year.
--------------------------------------------------------
J MINUS 30 says the readout on the main bridge screen.
The bridge is at zero-gee, and everything on the ship is powered down
except the Jump drives and minimal life-support. The Nav systems have
orientated the axis of the Jump field with our plotted destination, with
millimetric precision. I settle myself deeper into the soft cushioning of the
command chair and try to get my racing heartbeat under control. Breathe,
breathe, slow and even... God, how I hate Jump.....
J MINUS 20.
The ship says "Captain, please authorise final manual interlock release"; I
move my index finger to touch three holokeys in sequence. The ship says "Thank
you, Sir; all systems transferring to Jump computers, I am now going
offline." and the main bridge screen reads "Manual interlock released -
main Jump sequencer online; all stations reading go, all prejump checks
nominal, final countdown initiating", then flicks back to the dwindling
count. Everything is on automatics now - dumb computers that will decide
if
we jump or abort. The ship's main pseudo-sentient "brain" is even more
at risk from the strangeness of Jump than us humans, so it shuts itself down
for the transit and then reboots on the other side. From this point, we're all
just along for the ride.
J MINUS 10.
I can feel the Jump Drugs that I swallowed a few minutes ago starting to take
hold of my system. They don't make the transit itself any easier, but they are
supposed to pull you out of the bad effects quicker on the other side.
Sometimes I wonder if they do anything at all, or if they are just a sugar
pill that the medics TELL us will help..... We don't belong in Jumpspace, and
it doesn't like having bits of our reality shoved into it. The Jump field will
pull us in, through the interface that I don't think even the scientists
understand, and the amount of energy we have pumped
into the field will determine - at least roughly - how far we "travel"
before Jumpspace throws us out again. That's the theory anyway - it's
just that sometimes Jumpspace will chew you around a bit before it spits you
out.....
J MINUS 5.
The bridge fills with an electric haze; my skin prickles, and I feel the
Jump fields surging through the ship - she groans and squirms like a
live
thing. Gripping my chair arms too tightly - relax, let go. Fleeting
images,
as always - crazy thoughts of the old spacers' horror tales, of those
who came through Jump without their minds, their souls lost to the Deep
Cold.... Our Father, Who Art In........
J ZERO.
Jump sucks us in..... Going nowhere and everywhere, very, very fast. No time,
no space.
A non-moment that lasts for eternity.
And spits us out......
J ZERO.
...Heaven, hallow'd be Thy....Out, out, down again...... Disorientation, then
gradual realisation. My mind works, my memory is still there, please don't let
me throw up.....
The drugs seem to be kicking in, dragging me back - no, GO AWAY, I want
to
sleep.....
J PLUS 20.
My eyes are focussing, can just make out the main screen: "Jump sequence
terminated. Initial positioning scans indicate Jump accuracy 94.45%.
Initiating postjump diagnostics and staged shutdown of drive units, returning
command to realspace systems". The ship's brain wakes from its short sleep:
"Main cortex reboot successful; Personality reconstruct at
25%...50%....75%...completed. Recharge cycle time for next Jump: 5 hours 48
minutes. Hello, Sir, it's nice to be back."
J PLUS 60.
Starting to really wake up now, slowly clearing my mind. The older I get the
worse it seems, some of these kids on the bridge are up and about already!
I've lost count of the Jumps I've made, but it's still as bad as the first
time. Less than six hours before the next one, I need some
coffee.....
---------------------------------------
> From INTRODUCTION TO JUMP THEORY, a lecture presented at Down
"Jumpspace, Hyperspace, Subspace - whatever you call it, it doesn't like
bits of our reality being shoved into it. Push a ship in, and Jumpspace
will spit it out again - the good bit is that it will spit you out
somewhere else (hopefully round about where you want to be, if you've done
your math right), and all in zero elapsed time! Of course, every now and then
it'll chew you around a bit before spitting you out, but we try not to think
about that too much.... The human mind dosn't like Jumpspace any more than the
space likes us; we can take it, especially with the right drugs to help,
though most of the
time it's pretty unpleasant unless you're well asleep - a few people
claim to even enjoy it, but then some enjoy some pretty weird things anyway.
If you're unlucky (and whatever the shipping lines or Navy recruiting tell
you, every now and then someone is) then you stand a small chance of coming
out thinking you're Napoleon, that's if you can think at all. Some people
think that they feel time passing while they are transiting Jumpspace, but we
generally put this down to their own imaginations after
the event - no-one has ever managed to record a measurable time interval
between Jump entry and exit. I met an old spacer once who claimed he had
actually SEEN the inside of Jumpspace, but this WAS after nine hellburners in
the Chrome Angel over on Farren.....
Let's get one thing clear - we don't KNOW how Jump operates. We've been
using it for over a century and even our top physicists and their AIs can't
figure out what is actually going on. What we do know is how to create a
temporary interface with Jumpspace big enough to push a ship through, and we
know how to push it in so we can predict roughly where it will pop out
again - basically, the more energy you pump into the drive field
relative to your ship mass the further (in realspace terms) you go before
Jumpspace gets pissed off with you and chucks you out. Maybe someday we'll
meet someone out there who can actually tell us how it
all works....."
<<Sorry, Jon, you're going to get this twice.>>
Just a couple of comments and a couple of questions.
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:25:32 +0000, jon@gzero.dungeon.com (Ground Zero
> Games) wrote:
> LIFE ABOARD SHIP:
But not by much...
> Standard timekeeping on warships follows Earth-standard 24 hour days,
This isn't bad, though I'd personally a prefer a 25 hour clock with 5 watches
of 5 hours. The reasoning is that the human biological clock is 25 hours; most
humans work better on a 25 hour clock. On a starship, a clock is completely
artificial. Unless the ship always docks at Earth, chances are they will be
docking at a planet that doesn't have a 24 hour day. I could see a future
where starships change to a 25 hour day for efficiency sake. Just a thought.
> Much the same applies to the small "fighter" craft, which usually have
Well, I still completely disagree with this. I can agree with humans on
starships, but there's no reason for humans on fighters. Yes, humans have
"instincts" but computers have much better reaction times and can handle
greater G loads. Without a need for a cockpit and a life support system, the
autonomous fighter should be smaller, and more nimble, with a longer crusing
distance. The USAF believes that it will have a completely autonomous fighter
by 2020, and that's an atmospheric fighter (it should be harder to design an
autonomous atmospheric fighter as there are more variables). With that in
mind, an autonomous vacuum fighter about 200 years later should be a given.
That having been said, I have a way around this. Gravitic compensators would
have to be used on fighters; that's pretty much a given or your pilot (or
computer system) will be a smear against a fighter's hull. So, even an
autonomous fighter would need a gravitic compensator to work properly. Here's
the thing: gravitic compensators give off interference that adversely affects
computers. The computer cores on larger ships are better shielded (let's call
it "neutrino shielding"
or some such) and run with lower powered/no compensators in the core
area. The extra weight to shield a fighter actually pushes it back so that
human fighters have the advantage. Of course, scientists are working on this
problem and expect a workable autonomous fighter in X years.
There is another option. Training is considered another cost where autonomous
fighters excel. Creating an AI routine for a drone fighter is expensive, but
you only have to do it once (with the obligatory patches, of course). Humans
require a great deal of time and effort to
train and re-train. The background doesn't mention anything about
cyber ware or other man/machine interfaces. I've been a proponent of
"slots" or "chips" where by the human wetware can be augmented by "cyberware".
Pop in a slot and today you're a gunnery officer where yesterday you were a
navigator. This allows for a cheap supply of
untrained (uneducated?) pilots who--once they jack in--become a new
Chuck Yeager.
Of course, how is this cyberware affected by those gravitic compensators...?
This isn't much use for the game, but it gives all sorts of story
possibilities.
> Despite
Except that it still takes a good couple of years to create a fighter jock,
unless computers are augmenting their training.
> SHIP ALERT STATES:
We need one more alert state. I recommend ORANGE, the alert state for Jumps.
All crew are at their combat stations in open suits and locked into crash
frames. Closed suits aren't much use, as the implications of vomiting in a
closed suit while the rest of the crew is incapacitated are a greater risk
than a hull breach just after jump. In other words, you're not likely to
survive anything that requires a vac suit while the crew is still only partly
conscious but the military being the military they figure it wise if everyone
suits
up--without gauntlets or helmets--anyway. All systems are off line as
the main computer is off line. Defensive systems are one of the first systems
brought up when the computer boots. Time from GREEN state to ORANGE is about
15 minutes. Time from YELLOW ONE state to ORANGE is 7 minutes. Time from
YELLOW TWO state to ORANGE is 3 minutes. Time from RED state to ORANGE is
instantaneous, as the crew is probably going to risk jumping in a closed suit.
Each of these times are modified by the time it takes the Jump engines to get
online and the navigation system to plot a jump solution.
How long does it take the jump engines to "come on line"? You mention a
minimum turn around of 6 hours, but that's assuming that the engines just
fired. They need to be inspected and maintained. I'd assume a minimum of
around 6 hours from a "cold start." Can jump engines be kept warm so that the
ships can warp out at a moment's notice?
Will the turn around time have an affect on the game? We have ships jumping
into battle all the time. This would imply a turn of about 30 to 60 minutes as
a ship that jumps onto the board is ready to go at almost any time. And the
rules don't prohibit jumping on the turn immediately after jumping into a
system, which seems to imply a game turn of 6 hours. Should there be a
prohibition of jumping off the board so many turns after jumping onto the
board? (See what happens
when you actually try to put a rationale behind the game. :-) )
> When moving a fleet of ships together, the potential errors in the long
I'll go one further. Potential errors, even when ships are jumping fairly
accurately from long distances, can put ships on top of each other (or even
inside each other) when they come out of jump. Minimum ship distance would
increase as the length of the jump increases, and decrease as the jumps
shorten. A fleet jumping to a distant system would disperse further and
further, until it hit the mid point when it would start to coallesce closer
and closer with each jump.
Question: how do interstellar communications work? Is there some form of
"subspace" radio, or are packet boats (ala Traveller) the way to communicate
over long distances?
Lots more stuff in this note than I intended. There's a reason for it, but I
won't say what it is until I see if it will pan out...
Allan Goodall, I have been in contact with: "Honest Johns Used Spaceship
Parts" the owner says you should stop buying the inferior FSE and ESU grav
units for your fighters. Even the used FCT compensators do not cause the
problem you related, and they are on sale this month only. So act quickly,
this is a limited time offer!
As far as communications is concerned, I feel that the courier
ship exists for a reason, communication. So I prefer the non-FTL
communication background of 'Traveller".
Drone fighters can be trusted to always make the same choice given the
(basically) same conditions. As a result the drones win round one big time,
and become progressively less effective as the countermeasures come into play.
The human fighters would soon acquire a special fighter that carried ECM or
Weasel sets to force the 'incorrect' choice in the drones program. The drone
fighter would be a very, Very, VERY high price item and the loss of even a
single squadron could be a disaster. (If intersted in the reasoning behind
this statement I'll amplify in a later message if you desire.)
Bye for now,
Hi Jon,
I like the write up, but....
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Space is REALLY, REALLY BIG. And really empty. In fact, it is even
Hey, leave out the Canada jokes, eh? (8-)
J.
> Hi Jon,
Feeling a little _sensitive_ this evening, Jer? ;-)
Mk
> Jerry 'Ghoti' Han wrote:
Jerry, Eight minus on a scale of one to ten isn't that bad. So if you don't
like the jokes stop giving them grades.
(Smirk)
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
Eight minus? OH, the smiley!
I wear glasses, so this: (:-) becomes (8-)
To bring this back to something that's somewhat on topic...
Ah, hell, it's too late (early?) - I can't think straight.
I'll come up with something deep and meaningful tomorrow (today?)
J.
John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
> As far as communications is concerned, I feel that the courier
I agree. It makes an interesting setting especially for a campaign.
> Drone fighters can be trusted to always make the same choice
The drone fighters could easily be programmed to avoid this. The simple way
would to have a number of choices for any given situation and randomly pick
between them. A different method would be to give the drone a history so that
if it used the same tactic a couple of time, it would do something different
this time. I think that this would not be a problem.
Enjoy,
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:55:44 -0800, Tom Granvold writes:
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here that seems obvious to me would
be to have the fighter be tele-operated for the carrier. The fighter
could have limited on board smarts, like for evasive action and targeting and
such, but could get arger movements and tactics and such from a human on the
carrier.
This wouldn't work in all genre's though. Somewhere where fighters operate
multiple light seconds away from their carrier, the time lag for the
communications would be too large. But in something like a B5 based world,
where ships fight in the 10's of kilometer range, the delay for a signel would
be almost zero.
This would allow you to use less expensive hardware, and not tend to loose the
expensive pilots.
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, John Leary wrote:
> Allan Goodall,
Me too. (Although I don't play Traveller...) Courier vessels make the game
more interesting strategically, and, as another poster pointed out, give that
proper 'High Colonial' feel to the game.
(This "High Colonial"/Napoleonic feel is more or less your inspriation
for the 'offical' GZG background, isn't it, Jon? British Empire & German
allies vs nasty French, only the Russians have changed sides...)
One idea I kind of like is the idea of FTL comms being possible, but
hugely power-intensive, to the extent that only large, dedicated
stations can mount FTL comms, therefore only larger or vital colonies have the
things - the rest of the colonies and all fleets make do with couriers,
probably following some sort of semi-regular scheduale - interstellar
postman, anyone?
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, John Leary wrote:
One thing you could do is have unmanned, very small (hard to detect) courier
vessels. This way the transits could be made without delay between transits.
This would make transmission effectively FTL. Essentially the only delay would
be to power up the computers, calculate position, then power down the computer
and make the next transit. Very difficult to intercept, especially if the
couriers strayed far off the major shipping lines...
Just an idea from someone who doesn't even play FT.
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:52:11 -0800, John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
wrote:
> Drone fighters can be trusted to always make the same choice
I disagree. I have flight sims where the computer--operating identical
aircraft--do not make the same choices in the same situation. Usually
there is a range of options of which the computer can randomly choose.
> As a result the drones
The other problem with the argument is that there really isn't a whole lot of
options in space combat. In aerospace combat you want to achieve a position of
greater energy with respect to your target. In space, there's no such problem.
Both sets of fighters approach each other at some speed with momentum easily
calculated. When maneouvring cuts in, it becomes a rather simple turning
battle. Since there is no air involved, most of the variables of conventional
fighter combat are gone: climb rate, dive rate, drag, rate of speed drop in a
turn, etc. The functional manoeuvre advantages go to the craft with greater
acceleration, smaller turning radius, and longest range. Assuming identical
engines and mass load out, the advantage goes to the unmanned fighter: no
lifesupport system, no cockpit, smaller size vessel, thus lower mass. Add to
this the fact that computers don't have that little problem of G forces
causing blood to pull away from
the brain, and you've got a fighter that--given the same engine, load
out, and roughly the same airframe (spaceframe?)--has a massive
turning and acceleration advantage.
One thing modern fighter combat has taught us is that technological advantages
more than make up for pilot skill. Put a novice pilot in an F22 against an
excellent pilot in a MiG 17 and the F22 still wins in most situations. The
unmanned fighter has the advantage in turning and accleration. The fact that
it might be predictable (still debatable) or lacking in instinct is
irrelevant. It can still out react a human. The human pilot becomes a
liability.
> The drone fighter would be a very, Very, VERY high price
I disagree with this, too. One of the highest costs in a modern fighter
squadron are the humans. They take a long time to train, they require food and
water (expensive not just in the raw materials but in the logistical
nightmares they cause) and when you lose them there are major political and
social repercussions. Computer pilots, on the other hand, are incredibly cheap
to build once you work out the dogfighting routines, essentially a one shot
cost. The ships
themselves would be smaller--thus cheaper--than manned ships.
> (If intersted in the reasoning behind this statement I'll
I'd like to see that.
This is MOST definately wrong. It's exactly the opposite. A good pilot wil
usually win over an inferior piloy in a better plane. Even some cursory study
of air combat history or any discussion about Red Flag or Top gun will show
that.
instructors at ARed Flagg in F5s and A7s are constantly whipping dudes in F18s
and F14s and f16s.
> This is MOST definitely wrong. It's exactly the opposite. A good pilot
I agree with your sentiment but what is the distinction you are making between
superior and inferior planes? These aircraft all perform very different roles
IIRC and so shouldn't be used as a baseline for pilot performance. The F14 is
an interceptor. I believe that it is at its best
at stand off fights lobbing AIM 54s at inbound fighter-bombers. I would
have thought that getting the Tomcat into dog fights with enemy aircraft as
last resort type stuff. The A7 and F5 are much more manoeuvrable than the
bigger aircraft (F14,F15,F18) and so should out perform them in dog fights,
regardless of pilot ability. The F16 would be the only one I'd have trouble
believing being outmatched by an A7.
The only factor as I see it in your example is the guys that fly the "enemy"
aircraft at the instruction schools (Top Gun being the only one I know about)
fly them day in day out every day against people they are trying to teach.
They could I believe fly their aircraft fast asleep and this means that they
know where the performance envelope lies and push it consistently.
If you swap these guys into the opposite planes I'm sure the score would be
just about the same.
So as I see it what is important in your example isn't aircraft ability, its
pilot experience. In the SF realm that was being discussed that boils down to
AI sophistication. A more sophisticated AI should beat a less sophisticated AI
regardless of the machinery most of the time. So once the AIs have progressed
to the point where they can match or exceed human pilot ability with the
advantages that Alan pointed out it then becomes a race between AI
manufacturers. Until the AI matches human ability in combat then the best
'man' will win.
I like the example in Iain Banks' "Culture" universe where human pilots cannot
hope to match the AI's
I'm just rambling now...
Dan
> Los wrote:
I hear Chuck Yeager saying: 'It's the Man, not the Machine.' (8-)
But, on the flip side, pilot skill will only take you so far. Give me a pilot
just out of the USAF Academy, and the Baron von Richtofen, and give the newbie
an F15 and Richtofen his Fokker DVII, and see what the hell
happens. (Big Hint: Sonic Boom at Mach 2 (8-) )
Pilot quality counts as long as both aircraft are within the same 'league'
(defined very loosely.) ROEs can bring an advanced fighter down to its knees.
For example, F22 v. MiG 17; F22 is the Energy fighter, MiG 17 Angles. Now, it
looks like the F22 is going to kick major butt, right?
Then I slap on a ROE stating the F22 must visually ID the target before
engagement. Now, the F22 is in trouble; the pilot will have to resist the
temptation to try to turn with the MiG, and will have to fight an energy
fight, which takes a hell of a lot more discipline and sense of timing.
However, if the F22 has clearance to shoot BVR, and that MiG is hovering
around 20k ft, well... pilot quality don't mean nothing vs 4 AMRAAMs.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
An unmanned figher is only as good as its programming. In a combat scenario,
where mission execution may depend on the unexpected, human participation in
the decision loop is essential.
Human liability is mostly centered on human fraility; our sustained G
tolernace is 'low.'
I do believe that missiles and other unmanned drones/aircraft can play a
larger role than conservative military elements will allow them to play.
However, I don't believe that manned fighters will ever be replaced. Any
scenario which can't be programmed for will mean you will want human
pilots e.g. any scenario one step down from a full out hot-war.
More random babbling from the nightshift. (8-)
J.
Ahh 3am and I can't sleep, might as well see what's cooking on the
net....
> Cleyne, Daniel wrote:
> I agree with your sentiment but what is the distinction you are making
First off I made a mistake I meant to say A4 not A7. The previous poster made
the remark that technologically superior palnes overcome pilot quality. This
would be violently disagreed by any fighter pilot and it's not born out in the
history of air combat either. Technology comes into play as an advantage as
pilot quality appraoched parity. A4s and F5s flown by superior pilots
outperform F14s and the other big boys at Red Flag and Top Gun on a regular
basis. And the sole reason is due to pilot quality. This is throughout the
entire range of air operations and not just guns only knife fights. Once the
students are brought up to the level of instruction as the instructors, they
began to achiev sone parody, but certainly not all of them. And keep in mind
the students are all experienced fighter pilots in their own aircraft with
years of tactical operations under their belts.
Some good further reading on this subject can be had from: (I'd give you isbns
but theyr're all upstairs in my sons room and he's asleep!) "Air Combat:
Tactics and manuevering" Robert Shaw. This is pretty much teh fighter pilots
bible. "The Ace factor Situational Awareness and Air Combat": Mike Spick. Tons
of statistical data on pilot quality and soft factors vs technical factors.
This does not support a statement that:
> One thing modern fighter combat has taught us is that technological
> The only factor as I see it in your example is the guys that fly the
Thank your for making my point. Pilot quality matters.
> If you swap these guys into the opposite planes I'm sure the score
No they would not, not with out mucho time in the seat, because the F5 and A4
are inferior planes in many ways, avionics, pilot system mamangement,
speed, climbrate, and vs F16/F18 turning ability.
As a cheap experiment go try out Air Warrior or Warbirds online. Both have
pretty accurate flight models and require reaslitsic ACM and BFM to master. In
gfact Robert Shaw from above was heavily involved as an advisor to kesmai and
flies both. A number of other fighter buddies of mine do. Fly the game for a
few weeks until youa re comfortable in the seat, then go take up an Me262
against an ace in a P51 or even MiG3 and see what happens to you consistently.
Actually on second thought that's not so cheap an experiment since your
talking 2-3 bucks an hour!
There is always discussion amongst people without a good grasp of warfare that
technology is always more important than training, experience, unit cohesion,
etc. These human factors are always discounted, most likely becasue they're
tougher to quantify and not as sexy tolook at when you are analysing the
defense budget. A good example is desert strom. What made that a resounding
success was not smart bombs and stealth fighters and M1A1s, though they
certainly were "force multipliers". It was the allied doctrine, training, and
unit quality that made it seem so easy. If we would have swapped equipment
with Iraqis you would have had just about teh same results.
This is something a lot of countries, in particularly in the Middle East, fail
to grasp. Just because you have ridiculous amounts of money to spend and you
buy all kinds of high quality new equipment, that you instantly have a vaunted
army. (And with pilot parity an SU27 or a Mig31 is more than a
match for an F16/F15. The USAF bought 36 of them and has been putting
them through their paces at Red Flag) Where has this been ever proven in
actual combat operations? Certainly not in the middle east over the past
thirty years. Nor was it proven in 1940 when the numerically and
technologically superior French tank arm (well ther whole Army for that
matter) was resoundlingly defeated by the Germans.
> So as I see it what is important in your example isn't aircraft
Sure assuming you could get self aware AI to that level of sophistication, and
that it could learn "on the fly" then it's a AI development race as you say.
However at this point we are divorcing the technological performance of
the space fighter, (G-loading, speed, detection systems, blah blah blah,
)
from the AI software or wetware.
To tie all this back into Full Thrust. I see that there never seems to be any
mention of crew quality in any of the ships. Is it assumed that all ships have
crew quality of rough parity.
> At 11:55 11/02/98 -0800, you wrote:
The problem I have with that is that this sort of campaign by definition
requires FTL travel and I never really liked the idea (even back when I played
1st edition traveller) that a culture could somehow develop FTL travel without
developing FTL comms. It's like having invented a teleporter but yet not
invented a Fax machine or radio.
I can cope with the idea that FTL comms requires a huge power output and
then you get these comms 'nexi' - which then of course make nice
strategic
targets - but then you would have to say that FTL travel would also
require a massive power output, in which case you shouldn't be able to jump in
your corvette, unless we persume corvette's are actually quite large and
Dreadnoughts and absolutely bloody enormous.
TTFN
Jon
> travel without developing FTL comms. It's like having invented a
It's still wierd (to me). Any form of FTL is *probably* going to be down to
som equantum mechanical fudge or other taken macroscale, and I can't see how
it would be easier to 'fool' physics for something the size of an aircraft
carrier (or bigger) rather than, say, a pulsed EM beam. This is all conjecture
on my part admittedly. But I just feel that the analogy with
sail doesn't apply - we DID have Comms that was much faster than
carrying a
message pre-sail (semaphore, smoke signals, anything), what we didn't
have was beyond line of sight communications. I don't think that distinction
is really applicable in a stellar context.
> Or how about this for a comprimise. Messages are realyed by fixed commo
I believe in B5 they do do an instant-period comms via jump-points.
Again, from what I can discern, the 'points' into hyperspace are always there,
but are stretched wide enough for ships to go through by the jumpgates.
I dare say you could come up with a PSB explanation of why you have FTL travel
but not comms, but I think you'd have to work harder than the other way
around.
TFN
Jon
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Los wrote:
> This is MOST definately wrong. It's exactly the opposite. A good pilot
But then again the point of Red Flag and Top Gun are to teach dogfighting
skills and the rules specifically eliminate high-tech long range items
such as Radar guided missiles - a big part of modern combat. Plus the
Agressors are given a lot of advantages, such as knowledge of when and where
the fight is going to be, they can focus their attention instead of
having to scan the entire sky - surprise is always a major factor in
combat. F5's and used to be A4's were chosen for their small profiles, making
it much more difficult to spot them visually but they have terrible radar
profiles, but once again radar is not used in these exercises. So I think that
Allan's point that technology can make up for a lot of skill is
correct - You could be a dogfighting ace in a Mig-21 but it doesn't do
much good against an F-14 firing a Phoenix missile from 60 miles away.
You then have to depend on your jamming equipment and chaff to survive, not
much skill there. When you think about it the missile is basically a pilotless
suicide drone and they don't do half bad in getting within a few dozen meters
of their targets.
--Binhan
> Jonathan white wrote:
> The problem I have with that is that this sort of campaign by
Why not? That's excactly how cultures and Empires developed here on earth.
Communication develop at the speed of transportation. (sailing ship, horse etc
etc.) I guess if you are proposing that FTL commo is no faster than FTL
travel,I'd agree with you. (that means message bouys couriers etc). However if
you are talking instantaneous commo, then maybe that's a tech level above
current NSLNAC blah blah capabilities.
Of course theres always the psychic connection ala GW games.
Or how about this for a comprimise. Messages are realyed by fixed commo relay
sites at Jump points. The messsage itself is a physical object like a bouy or
container, that is relayed from point to point by a series of jumps. Being non
organic, the bouy can be "jumped" as quickly as a relay shuttle is ready to
send it.
While this doesn't give you instantaneous comms it does give you FTL comms
faster than normal FTYL transit and is in line with current technology. Also
relay stations then become things to fight over and interdict.
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> But then again the point of Red Flag and Top Gun are to teach
Incorrect. Red Flag is a full blown combat training center similar to JRTC or
NTC. The pilots were up to full strike missions and everything that goes into
them. This includes free play and scripted exercizes. If Red Flagg was just
about gunfighting and close in dog fights it wouldn't be very cost effective
per se.
> Agressors are given a lot of advantages, such as knowledge of when and
There seems to be a common misconception that any missle fired is pretty much
an automatic kill. This is not true. Sure if you have the surprise factor
going, a pheonix kill against an ususpecting MiG21 at 60 miles is a nice kill.
But once any missle is detected it is already half defeated.That unsuspecting
MiG21 could very easily spoof or dodge the Pheonix (Which was basically
designed to defeat the Soviet Backfire bomber threat against the fleet).
Defeating enemy missles is a big part of red Flag itself. You will see that
most are made against piilots that never even new the enemy was around. In
Vietnam, which was one of the last time where you had determined attempts to
interdict enemy (US) strikes. The NVAF was often able to evade first launch
which then neccesiated going into dogfight mode,
> You then have to depend on your jamming equipment and chaff to
There very much is skill in the use of ECM and counter measures. You don't
have an unlimited supply of Chaff or Flares. Also use it too soon and the
missle will see through it and reacquire the original target. Likewaise from
the minute you turn on ECM, you are basically telling everyone in the world
HERE I AM COME AND GET ME. So the use of ECM needs to be timed exactly so it
disrupts the enemy lockon until the missle is no longer a threat, then you get
teh hell out of the AO.
You us really should do some basic research into ACM. Especially if you are
going to draw parallels between it and futire Space Combat. I can't recommend
enough Shaws' "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Manuevering" as a good start.
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:12:02 -0500, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:
> This is MOST definately wrong. It's exactly the opposite. A good pilot
Not according to the gang on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim. The
problem with Red Flag and Top Gun is that they don't cover all variables. They
don't cover AWACs. They don't cover stealth fighters or cruise missiles taking
out the runways first. They don't cover SAMs helping out one side over the
other. There is a lot of tech that these games don't teach.
As for history, compare Me262s versus P-51s and Spitfire XIIIs. There
are major points where technology outruns raw talent.
> instructors at ARed Flagg in F5s and A7s are constantly whipping dudes
Not constantly. The students take out the instructors more than you might
think. Top Gun in particular covers dogfighting more than stand off missile
fire.
> On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 02:15:28 -0500, Jerry Han <jhan@canoe.ca> wrote:
> An unmanned figher is only as good as its programming. In a combat
There is human participation: the programmer. The programmer can be wiley and
unpredictable; he just has to think of it ahead of time...
> I do believe that missiles and other unmanned drones/aircraft can play
I agree with that last point. Humans are better with vague orders,
particularly when it comes to changing the rules of engagement. Check out that
"Blackhawk Down" message that was posted a little while back. The rules of
engagement changed radically and the men on the ground threw them out the
window. That's a hard thing for a computer to "decide."
Red Flag usually deploys anywhere from one full squadron to one full wing for
the duration and exercizes the entire gambit of operations from foward
deployment airfields, maintenace and air ops. I know because I've participated
in a few back when CSAR was a primary responsiblity for my team.
Now this whole thing started when someone mentioned technological superiority
renders pilot quality moot or some such remark. Now we are expanding the
discusion to include warfighting startegies we are drifting off the base
discussion. Just wanted to make that point.
Red Flag or NTC or JRTC is the closets any militray unit is going to get to
fighting in a real war.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> As for history, compare Me262s versus P-51s and Spitfire XIIIs. There
Outrun yes. And the only guys flying Me262s in JV44 were ridiculously
overexperienced German experten so in that case you have technological quality
and pilot quality outsurpassing their opponents, though niether could make up
for numbers and the US tactic of hitting the Jets where they were most
vulnerable. Landing and taking off where they coudln't defend themselves.
> Not constantly. The students take out the instructors more than you
BTW keep in mind that students that go to TOP gun are also long term high
quality pilotsof natuarl flying ability chosen as the best in their squadrons.
Top Gun is a train the trainer course with these guys heading home to teach
> Allan Goodall wrote:
Ah, c.s.i.p.g.flight-sim, those purveyors of quality information. (8-)
(Sorry, I've been a little annoyed at signal:noise ratios on newsgroups for
the past year. The only group I'll read on a regular basis is
sci.military.moderated, and that's because it's moderated. (8-) )
Red Flag does (or at least, did) cover all operations of a modern war,
including Stealth (once it became declassified enough to be seen at 'Flags')
and damage to friendly infrastructure. In fact, I remember reading once that,
in one Red Flag, the bad guys 'nuked' Nellis AFB at
a conclusion of a 'Flag'. (8-) I've heard of A10 backfield operations,
AWACS escort and shoot-down operations, different types of strike
(though with saftey rules e.g. hard decks, which does change the nature of the
experience somewhat.)
Top Gun does NOT cover anything other than ACM. If you want the full combat
experience, you want to visit 'Strike', though it doesn't do the full
experience that 'Red Flag' and related exercises give you.
However Top Gun does prove that you gotta be really good, or really dumb, to
go angles in an F14 v. a F5. If you're in a F14A, don't go
energy either. Pop the bastard with Phoenix from 50nm out. (8-)
> As for history, compare Me262s versus P-51s and Spitfire XIIIs. There
Actually, this is a hard analogy to tease out, because, by the time the Me 262
was seeing squadron service, its so purpose was to intercept heavy bombers,
and not engage in dogfights with the escort. The Me 262 had the great
advantage of being able to outrun and outclimb anything in the sky, which made
hit and run attacks on 8th AF very easy. Likewise, energy fights with prop
fighters were easy. But, if you actually got into a turning dogfight with the
262, its speed and unreliable engines worked against you.
As well, the Luftwaffe at this point was in a sorry state, being comprised of
elite veterans and cannon fodder, with no middle state. Me 262s were given
almost exclusively to the elite veterans, providing a good plane
with elite pilots. (Galland's elite squadron comes to mind - Knowtony
Kommando?) Thus, I'm not sure you can use the talent argument here.
> >instructors at ARed Flagg in F5s and A7s are constantly whipping
However, as stated above, do not take a F14 into an angles fight unless
you want to die miserably. (8-)
J.
More ramblings! (8-)
> Allan Goodall wrote:
The programmer has to be good. But, this raises the spectre of good software
engineering, which, so far, has proven to be an impossibility. I'm a
programmer, and I will say that programming is still more art than science. We
can't take a measure of a program the way we take a measure of a bridge or a
starship and say it's going to work or not. In fact, there are some
computability theorems (Halting Problem) which basically state we can't
predict the output of a program without running the thing. If it's a large
intensive software project, running it several thousand times might be better,
if you want to catch all the major bugs.
As for my decision loop argument; the programmer is too far removed to
be of use in the information-decision cycle. There should be somebody
in the cycle who can intercede at a moments notice in the event the AIs
encounter something that wasn't programmed for, or in the event of program
failure. (It would be very bad if you lost your entire fighter wing because
your entire force used Windows Combat AI as operating
software. (8-) )
J.
> At 11:55 2/11/98, Brian Burger wrote:
Rather like ComStar in the BattleTech universe... a good compromise, methinks.
:)
> things - the rest of the colonies and all fleets make do with couriers,
Provided it's not Kevin Costner.:P
> At 02:15 2/12/98, Jerry Han wrote:
Reminds me of a story: some years ago, I was playing Chuck Yeager's Flight
simulator and for grins dialed up a F16 vs a Yak-something-or-other WWII
era prop plane. I figured I had an easy victory but... that Yak was so slow, I
couldn't hold a bead on it for long before overshooting it and having to make
a *long* loop around for the next pass. With no missiles (would a Sidewinder
lock onto a prop plane anyway?) it took *forever* to kill the thing.
Admittedly, the model wasn't sophisticated enough to calculate the effects of
a supersonic flyby on a wood & cloth plane....
> At 01:24 13/02/98 -0600, you wrote:
This reminds me of the (supposedly true) story about the 2 US fighters in
Korea which were destroyed attacking a Polikarpov Po-2 (Stearman-like
biplane basic trainer operating as a night intruder). The US a/c went
after
it (I seem to remember they were F-94 Starfires), and had a great deal
of
difficulty due to the Po-2's low speed and evasive maneuvering.
Eventually, the lead nightfighter lowered flaps and undercarriage to slow
itself right down, got into a firing position, fired, missed and stalled into
the ground. The second nightfighter kept it's speed up to avoid this, and
collided with
the Po-2, destroying both machines.
Rob
In message <199802111655.IAA20144@futhark.Eng.Sun.COM>
> Thomas.Granvold@Eng.Sun.COM (Tom Granvold) wrote:
> John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
As another option, there's nothing stopping the C&C ships from downloading new
tactics to the drone fighters as the battle progresses.
Interesting... Something I'd very much like to know though, which wasn't
mentioned, are 'real' units for length of a turn, and size of an ".
It makes a big difference to the perception of a battle (and discussion over
possible rules modifications) whether a turn is 15 minutes long, or a few
seconds.
> On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:27:50 -0500, Jerry Han <jhan@canoe.ca> wrote:
> I'm a programmer, and I will say that programming is still more art
I'm also a programmer (as well as systems analyst and technical writer) and we
can do a much better job than we are doing. I do know what you are saying.
It's the unknowns that kill programs. You can overcompensate with a bridge by
building it to 3 times it's necessary limits. It's hard to do that with a
computer. However, it can be done.
NASA does it by having three versions of the computer/software onboard
the shuttle, and requiring two of the software versions be written by two
different teams independently. It can be done.
> Interesting... Something I'd very much like to know though,
Someone on the list (sorry, can't recall who) worked out a while back that
1000 km per 1", and 20 mins per turn were reasonable approximations. I've
never done the math to check this, but it does have kind of the right "feel"
to it for our own background; different backgrounds will need different scales
(Star Trek ships never seem to fight until they're within spitting
distance...), which is why I've never set actual measurements. Of course,
whatever timeframe you set there will be some things that won't fit, but hey,
it's only a game...:)
> Samuel Penn wrote:
> Thomas.Granvold@Eng.Sun.COM (Tom Granvold) wrote:
> Sam.
Sam, The presumption that the owners of the superdrone have have an
unjammable, indecypherable, instantaneous, communication system means that no
AI is required on the fighter, It is a dumb drone.
Bye for now,
In message <34EF7B09.1FC3@sj.bigger.net>
> John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net> wrote:
> Samuel Penn wrote:
And as we both know, such a communication system is implausible. What I really
meant is that the AI in the drone is good enough to handle dogfighting and
basic tactics. C&C though always have the option of updating a drone's long
term goals.
Targets can be changed (all drones concentrate on enemy C&C), general tactics
modified (fight defensive rather than offensive, use tactic model B rather
than A). This sort of thing requires a short burst communication of a few
hundred bytes (authentication is also needed, as well as encryption).
It gives the advantage of an AI (no massive life support) with some of the
advantage of human ingenuity (for those who think AIs will never have this). A
single laser communication burst every few minutes makes it difficult to block
and intercept.