To assist Mr. Pournelle I have started this hopefully short-lived
topic in which I will express my opinion of the sandcaster weapon.
As far as I can tell, the only problem whatsoever with the sandcaster is that
as an offensive weapon it can't be intercepted. As long as it's moving at a
high enough speed, a defender will not have time to fire a pulse torpedo at
it. Missiles, while still quite dangerous, don't have this immunity from
defensive fire, even if they launch and hit the target in the same turn.
Bases, to briefly recall that ugly topic again, actually have it easy in this
regard, if you think my sand field idea is halfway reasonable. Since they're
not moving they can spend a lot of time erecting defenses against sand clouds.
In any event, I think the best way to deal with sand is to allow both screens
and armor to nullify its effect (Alternatively, one
could say that sand does 3 points of damage - the screen/armor level
of the ship in the cloud) - and the damage should NOT be velocity
dependent. Although that would add a nice flavor it just creates too many
problems. Assuming missiles and fighters have one damage point means that they
will be killed by sand (unless they are protected by
an extendable screen as described some time ago - see these topics
really all DO work together!). The PSB would basically say sand is nasty but
in the end it's small, and can't have much of an effect on a large ship.
Taking a screen hit could get nasty with the alternate damage rules, though.
So here are my proposed sandcaster rules. Of course I've deleted the original
post and I'm too lazy to visit Jerry Han's page so if something about these
rules is silly, feel free to substitute the original values in.
Sandcaster
Mass: whatever Pournelle said it was Cost: whatever Pournelle said it was
Effect: This weapon has no effect on any ship with armor or an operational
screen. Any object travelling through a sand cloud takes one point of damage.
Fighters and missiles are assumed to have one damage point each, except heavy
fighters, which have two. An object is considered to have travelled through a
sand cloud if its path intersected the path of the cloud at any point (the
launching ship is excluded at the time of launch but may pass through the
cloud later). The cloud is 3" in diameter and is launched with the launching
ship's
velocity plus a velocity of 1"/turn in whatever direction it was
fired. This weapon can be mounted in any arc.
> > As far as I can tell, the only problem whatsoever with the
How about firing 2 Sandcaster clouds at an incoming Sandcaster cloud to kill
the velocity of most of the incoming debris? Or ejecting an expanding foam
barrier between you and the incoming Sandcloud to carve an "impact hole"
through the cloud...Or special missiles designed to carry their own gas cloud
that ejects the gas just before the nuke warhead detonates, creating a
velocity sphere of gas
molecules that thins the cloud....;-) (or a slaver
disintigrator..;-P)
Sand Caster: Mass: 1 Cost: 3 Arc: Single, fixed. When fired delivers a Sand
Cloud 3 inched in Diameter in the area adjacent to the ship firing it. Last
three turns before dispersing. For Newtonian Games it has uses the originating
ship's Point of Origin (Velocity marker) for the first turn and then its own
following. Sand causes 1d3 Damage per inch per 12 inches of velocity of ships
travelling through it, minus shields and armor. Sand also disrupts beam
weapons. For each cloud of sand fired through add one screen level to the
target. Cloaked ships are revealed when they cross through a Sand Cloud. Sand
Clouds are dispersed when targeted by Pulse Torpedo launchers or hit by area
effect weapons. If you have large warhead weapons such as mega mines, or big
bomber missiles, these disperse Sand Clouds as well.
Sand Missile: Mass: 2 Cost: 6 Acts the same as any missile in the particular
rule system in use (i.e. Newtonian or Non). However its warhead is a Sand
Cloud 3 inches in Diameter. In a Newtonian Universe the Sand Cloud retains the
velocity of
the original missile. In a Non-Newtonian Universe it remains in place.
All Sand Clouds disperse after three turns of existance.
Side Arm Missle: Mass: 1 Cost: 3
Acts as a mini missile. Operate for two rounds in Non-Newtonian
and has thrust for Two rounds in Newtonian. Warhead is a sand cloud 1 inch in
Diameter. In a Newtonian Universe the Sand Cloud retains the velocity of the
original
missile. In a Non-Newtonian Universe it remains in place. All Sand
Clouds disperse after three turns of existance.
How is that?
> On Thu, 8 May 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the only problem whatsoever with the
I heartily agree and support your amendments. For what it's worth.
> On Thu, 8 May 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> Sand causes 1d3 Damage per inch per 12 inches of velocity of
Is the minus per die or total? And the velocity of the cloud itself is
irrelevant? Ok, it lacks the offensive punch now, so I'm happy.
> Sand also disrupts beam
I still would change that to either a binary all-or-nothing penalty, or
a penalty measured by the distance of cloud the shot passes. While it is hard
to exploit your rule, it can give odd effects where a ship nicking two clouds
gets more penalties than one shooting straight through one.
> At 11:50 PM 5/8/97 +0300, you wrote:
> Is the minus per die or total? And the velocity of the cloud itself is
Yes, per velocity difference. If you don't like it, don't use it. Newtonian
universes are inherently dangerous. You could also add that missiles are
destroyed by sand clouds but disperse 1 diameter radius worth of sand.
> Sand also disrupts beam
> two clouds gets more penalties than one shooting straight through one.
Too bad, nitpicking every thread in the rules will cause the whole sweater to
fall apart.
> On Thu, 8 May 1997, Mike Wikan wrote:
> How about firing 2 Sandcaster clouds at an incoming Sandcaster cloud
All good suggestions, but I don't like new weapon systems that don't have
countermeasures in the old tech. That has a nasty habit of making the old
designs obsolete overnight.
> On Thu, 8 May 97 11:21:13 PDT, you wrote:
> Sand Caster:
Just a minor point but I'd prefer 1d6 per 24 inches since that's less
predictable, and I hate rolling 1d3s.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970509000812.17318A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
> > to kill the velocity of most of the incoming debris? Or
The obvious old-tech counter-measure to sand is surely beams
(rather than PT's). I assume the sand-cloud PSB is that the sand
readily absorbs the beam's energy and vaporises. So you vape your way through.
Cooperate with the sand, rather than try to beat it. All the vanilla ships
have beams.
I have to say I don't readily buy sand as credible PSB. A cloud of sand is
vast compared to a ship (depending on how you see the
undefined FT ground-scale). If such an incredibly insubstantial
cloud of sand can absorb so much beam energy... why not just coat your hull
with the stuff?
In message <9705081821.AA07691@nps.navy.mil> "Phillip E. Pournelle" writes:
> Sand causes 1d3 Damage per inch per 12 inches of velocity of
Since the damage part of the sand cloud concept has caused such controversy, I
feel moved to question the wisdom of having sand cause any damage at all. Your
basic sand launcher has a mass of 1. In FT a 2 mass ship ramming an enemy has
an absolute limit of 6 damage points inflicted, with it's mass highly
concentrated. A sand cloud represents half the mass, spread liberally over,
well, the scale of FT is nebulous, but I'm sure we all think of 1" as well
over 10km. Orders of magnitude greater.
I really don't understand how a sand clound would impact on a space vessel as
anything more than would a gentle rain alighting upon one's head.
Just my thruppence ha'penny.
> On Thu, 8 May 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> Yes, per velocity difference.
So you basically halved your original damage proposal and that's it? Ok, I've
outlined why I don't like the idea (trigonometric calculations during play,
enveloping 2D attacks in 3D space, infinite damage potential and odd
situations), so I'll let it rest.
If you don't think those are problems, that's fine by me.
> On Thu, 8 May 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> Welcome to the arms race... We're trying to build a game
Speaking for myself, I like to play a game that is both simple and clean, like
basic FT is, and that has a significant suspension of disbelief factor, like
FT has for the most part. It models space opera "reality" pretty well.
It's the suspension of disbelief thing where I must consider realism at times.
IMHO, the game must have strong internal logic to be enjoyable. One can
explain inconsistency with more advanced scientific concepts with some PSB,
but screwing around things like basic geometry can destroy the game's
believability fast.
As for the arms race bit, I used to play a lot of Car Wars before I got tired
of the arms race. Games from a certain unnamed manufacturer of miniatures also
have a strong arms race component, which is one reason I
don't like them.
Certainly an arms race is realistic, if you're portraying the passing of
time in a game world. If you want that, you can assign existing equipment tech
levels or something.
But when the arms race is solely tied to the publication of new supplements,
I'm against it. Even if those supplements are free.
It unnecessarily creates must-have items and the need to follow
the "technological progression".
> I know for my part you have burned a lot of credability in
Sorry for my ignorance, but what's SPCA?
> On Fri, 9 May 1997, David Brewer wrote:
Now that's a good idea.
> I have to say I don't readily buy sand as credible PSB. A cloud of
And consider the sand launch itself: The cloud immediately spreads to at least
several times the ship's volume. What's the magic force that stops
it expanding any further? Electro-Magnetic control is a possibility, but
then the ship should have better control over the cloud overall.
I'm beginning to think sand clouds would serve best as a primitive point
defense and screen substite in low-tech games, with a limited duration
and possibly no onboard representation at all. I seem to recall that's how
Traveller handled it.
"Incoming missiles, sir!" "Fire starboard sand casters."
> I know for my part you have burned a lot of credability in
The SPCA is the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (in the UK, it is
the R (Royal) SPCA); I think Phil was making a little jest concerning the
merits or otherwise of combining flagellation, necrophilia and bestiality.....
[OK, so its an old joke, but I couldn't resist it... ;) ]
Beating a dead horse.
Jon
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Sand
Author: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk at MEMCPSMTP
Date: 5/9/97 7:33 AM
> I know for my part you have burned a lot of credability in
The SPCA is the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (in the UK, it is
the R (Royal) SPCA); I think Phil was making a little jest concerning the
merits or otherwise of combining flagellation, necrophilia and bestiality.....
[OK, so its an old joke, but I couldn't resist it... ;) ]
> David Brewer wrote:
Good point. Personally I really don't like the idea of using a sand caster for
a offensive weapon in the first place. It's use might be helpful for short
range contacts, but the idea of billowing sand clouds in a battle field would
seem to hinder my own forces as well and any ships passing through that region
of space in the future. It only tool a small granule of matter about the size
of a grain of salt to put a nice crater in a viewport of one the space
shuttles.
My understanding of sand casters from popular sci-fi was to maintain a
cloud of highly reflective crystals using magnetic fields. Over use, the
crystals would disperse from hits and would require additional expenditures of
supply to keep the "screen" in place. The crystals had little to no mass, but
highly reflective properties to help disperse energy weapon attacks.
Once again, my modified version is based on Phil's. Comments on his and my
versions and the topic in general are included.
> Phillip E. Pournelle writes:
@:) Sand Caster:
@:) Mass: 1
@:) Cost: 3
@:) Arc: Single, fixed.
My version would have a cost of 1 (maybe 2), because I am about to castrate
your weapon like nobody's business and people still need a reason to buy it.
@:) When fired delivers a Sand Cloud 3 inched in Diameter in @:) the area
adjacent to the ship firing it. Lasts three turns before @:) dispersing. For
Newtonian Games it has uses the originating @:) ship's Point of Origin
(Velocity marker) for the first turn and @:) then its own following.
I think if I were writing it I wouldn't have it disperse (wait a minute I'm
not done yet) because that's simpler. Also I am thinking sand clouds should
come in varying sizes (and therefore varying densities): 1, 2 or 3 inches in
diameter. Please ignore the fact that
I am now adding a square factor into the existing cube-based
mathematics.
@:) Sand causes 1d3 Damage per inch per 12 inches of velocity @:) of ships
travelling through it, minus shields and armor. Sand @:) also disrupts beam
weapons. For each cloud of sand fired through @:) add one screen level to the
target.
I think, given the discussion on the ridiculous amounts of sand that would be
required to make a weapon like this work, that sand should cause damage ONLY
IF it actually contacts the target. So, any object travelling through a
diameter 1 Sand Cloud is hit by the sand only if
it rolls a 1-3 on a d6. With a diameter 2 Sand Cloud, 1-2 must be
rolled and with a diameter 3 Sand Cloud, a 1 must be rolled. If the object is
hit, it immediately takes 1d3 points of damage, REGARDLESS OF VELOCITY. For
purposes of this rule, assume missiles and fighters have 1 damage point, and
heavy fighters have 2. Armor provides no defense against sand damage but each
level of screening will reduce the damage by one point.
Beams are not disrupted when firing through sand, however pulse torpedoes have
the usual chance of hitting a sand particle and they
will disperse (detonate) if that occurrs - the torpedo will not hit
the target in this case.
@:) Cloaked ships are revealed when they cross through a Sand
@:) Cloud.
Not in my version. The sand here is so dispersed it's not even visible itself.
You wouldn't be able to see anything moving through it.
@:) Sand Clouds are dispersed when targeted by Pulse Torpedo @:) launchers or
hit by area effect weapons. If you have large @:) warhead weapons such as mega
mines, or big bomber missiles, these @:) disperse Sand Clouds as well.
Again, not in my variant. Nova Cannons and Wave Guns will destroy sand clouds,
because they vaporize everything in a rather large area that includes the Sand
Cloud. No other weapon will do this.
@:) Sand Missile:
@:) Mass: 2
@:) Cost: 6
@:) Acts the same as any missile in the particular rule system @:) in use
(i.e. Newtonian or Non). However its warhead is a Sand @:) Cloud 3 inches in
Diameter. In a Newtonian Universe the Sand @:) Cloud retains the velocity of
the original missile. In a
@:) Non-Newtonian Universe it remains in place. All Sand Clouds
@:) disperse after three turns of existance.
As per Phil's rules except that the controlling player chooses the size of the
cloud at the time of detonation and Sand Clouds do not disperse.
@:) Side Arm Missle:
@:) Mass: 1
@:) Cost: 3
@:) Acts as a mini missile. Operate for two rounds in
@:) Non-Newtonian and has thrust for Two rounds in Newtonian. Warhead
@:) is a sand cloud 1 inch in Diameter. @:) In a Newtonian Universe the Sand
Cloud retains the velocity of the
@:) original missile. In a Non-Newtonian Universe it remains in
@:) place. All Sand Clouds disperse after three turns of existance.
I would not include this weapon in my system.
So I can hear the complaints already. The two big problems will
probably be the non-dispersal and the non-velocity-dependent damage.
Basically I think these things need to be dropped in the interests of
simplicity. The fact that the clouds don't disperse isn't a problem for bases
as long as they have level 3 screens. If they don't, well they should expect
to get whacked anyway. Calculating impact velocity
is difficult and time-consuming. My solution is to have the sand do
constant damage (assume that the particles are small and would have to be
going WAY faster to increase their damage) and to consider an object to have
"passed through" the cloud as long as their paths crossed during the turn. I
think this simplifies things and is more in line with the FT ideal of a simple
and fun game system.
Comments? Flames?
> At 11:03 AM 5/9/97 +0300, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Sorry for my ignorance, but what's SPCA?
The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
> On May 9, 10:06, Mike Miserendino wrote:
Are we sure that the Screens we already have are not these?
> John Medway wrote:
Good question, I think we just came complete circle!;)
> On Fri, 9 May 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> My version would have a cost of 1 (maybe 2), because I am about to
1d3 damage can still kill a Mass 6 corvette. Ok, I can live with this.
> object to have "passed through" the cloud as long as their paths
I'd add a note about obvious "no hit" cases like stern chases.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
> John Medway wrote:
This type of screen would only be useful until the ship manuvers...
conservation of momentum would mean that the "screen" would continue in the
original direction and speed while the ship moved away.
> Michael "Wargh" Rutherfurd wrote:
Nope. The magnetic field would keep the screen where it was needed. Remember
as well, the particles have little to no mass. It would take very little
energy to keep them in place.
> At 02:42 PM 5/12/97 -0400, Mike Miserendino wrote:
The Assumption regarding the mass is incorrect in this case. In order to have
any significant effect in intercepting photons in a coherent laser and still
have enough mass left over to continue an effective screen over the large
volume of space that we are talking about, would require a reasonably
significant mass. Therefore, it would take quite a bit of energy to keep this
mass of swirling crystals to stay with the orginating craft. Phil P.
In message <9705122104.AA02301@nps.navy.mil> "Phillip E. Pournelle" writes:
> At 02:42 PM 5/12/97 -0400, Mike Miserendino wrote:
In
> order to have any significant effect in intercepting photons in a
Presumably, since energy is energy, mass is mass and delta-vee is
delta-vee; it isn't going to take any more energy to keep the
crystals with you as you accelerate if they're outside or inside your ship.
Unless I'm wrong (as usual). Anybody?
> On Tue, 13 May 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> Presumably, since energy is energy, mass is mass and delta-vee is
Except for the power required to keep them with your acceleration. While
they're in, your structural integrity does that job for you. While they're
out, you need an emag field or something to keep them with
your course changes.
In the latter case, the emag field is the force that keeps your system a
system. For the acceleration force to affect the sand, the field must be able
to exert a force sufficient for equal acceleration. The higher the
acceleration, the more power maintaining the field drains.
E.g. place your coffee mug on top of a sheet of paper. Pull the paper slowly.
The mug should follow. Now pull it sharply. Oh, did I mention to
do this with an empty mug? Anyway, the mug's position relative to the paper
should be different. Because you just exceeded the limits of the
force keeping the system together -- friction.
> Phillip Pournelle wrote:
In
> order to have any significant effect in intercepting photons in a
No, the energy requirements are still minor. The field affects each particle
individually, not as a whole. The particles are not treated as a single mass.
The force of the ship accelerating would need to exceed the force applied to
each individual particle. Since each particle has next to no mass, there is
very little inertia per particle to overcome. If the particles had greater
mass, and thus a larger inertia at rest state, the particles would require
stronger energy fields to keep them in station. However, I would think travel
in FTL would negate the field effects for one reason or another.
> At 11:32 AM 5/14/97 -0400, Mike Miserendino wrote:
> No, the energy requirements are still minor. The field affects each
Conservation of Mass requires that the enrgy be expended against each particle
individually and sum them... Since each particle has next to
> no mass, there is very little inertia per particle to overcome. If the
Huh? We just steped into Star Trek laws of physics...
> Phillip Pournelle wrote:
The energy you are speaking about is indirectly applied. The energy powers a
device that generates and focuses the magnetic field. The resulting magnetic
field affects each particle separately. Conservation of mass does not apply to
magnetic fields. Magnetic fields work similar to gravitic fields. For example,
the earth applies the same amount of gravitic attraction to the MIR space
station as it does to a smaller orbiting
satellite. The field does not sub-divide into smaller fields of lesser
attraction.
> Since each particle has next to
The part about FTL is just my guess. It was not stated as a fact. Works I have
read regarding possible FTL travel always seem to describe some sort of
barrier field or "exotic matter" used outside the spacecraft, that keeps it
from direct contact with hyperspace, etc. With such a barrier in place, I
would think it would be quite difficult to operate magnetic fields outside the
spacecraft. This is just my guess.