Though I like the smaller scale MU and the more abbreviated (if you
could call 6-7 minutes abbreviated) turn, I will point out that their
exists the bugbear of the planetary landing rules. Requiring thrust 4 for a
streamlined vessel suggests that thrust 3 would be insufficient. Any thrust
over 1 G should be sufficient, given some time. So it seems to me likely that
one possible derivation for this system would put 1G constant thrust would be
equivalent to a thrust of 3. Therefore 6 is 2 Gs. Now, this suggests our
intertial compensators aren't that great. Otherwise, why can't we pull 6 Gs
all the time? But if we say 1 thrust is 1 gee, then the landing rules make no
sense.
Hmm.... I sense a quandry.
What kind of world would we end up in if 1G was 3 thrust? that's only 1
constraint, and I think we'd also need to pick either a time scale or a
distance scale to bring meaning. But I'm not sure what would be appropriate.
Or maybe we should stick with 15 minutes and 1000km per turn (lets planets fit
on boards), accepting that the landing on planets rules then need chucked (in
this world view, thrust 2 should be sufficient for streamlined, and maybe 3
for partially streamlined ships).
It's interesting - reconcile the landing rules, you end up with a crappy
level of intertial compensators, smaller delta vee values, and probably a
smaller distance value. Chuck the landing rules, and you can no doubt use
figures for time and distance that make thrusts more "manly" (higher G) and
imply a better level of inertial compensator while also providing the ability
to put a planet on the board.
Anyone have a suggestion on how to put it all together?
<I'm off to prepare for a 20,000 pt FT battle tomorrow set in 2185>.
Tom.
From: Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay <kaladorn@home.com>
> Hmm.... I sense a quandry.
> What kind of world would we end up in if 1G was 3 thrust? that's only
My personal preference is to make 1 thrust = 1g. It feels right that
6-8g
thrust should be close to the max a crew would want to sustain in combat for
any length of time, compensators on no. As for the distance scaele, while
I1"=1000km is OK, I have a few problems with it. Aesthetically, (my personal
taste) it makes combat ranges a bit too big for "cinematic" scale.
Pragmatically, it makes asteroid- or asteroid field centered combat
rediculous, since there's only one asteroid (Ceres) that even approaches
1"
diameter at that scale, and only a handful at half that size in the Sol
system, not to mention the density of asteroid belts is anything but what
SW:TESB or Trek show. I'd like a distance scale that would make a good sized
rock like Ceres 10" across - or 100 km to mu. That'd make make most
planets too big for a play area, but, as in several scenarios, planet surfaces
could make up one edge of a play area (with gravity effects). That may wreak
havoc with the time scale though. My preferences for accelration and distance
may be at odds with each other.
> Noam wrote:
> My personal preference is to make 1 thrust = 1g. It feels right that
FB1 doesn't have any strict limit on the maximum thrust rating, though it is
very difficult to get a higher thrust rating than 18 at the moment <g>
> As for the distance scaele, while 1"=1000km is OK, I have a few
Well, yes. Cinematic scale battles should require all ships to be
within visual range of one another before anyone may open fire :-)
> Pragmatically, it makes asteroid- or asteroid field centered combat
That's why you use the MT "meteor swarm" rules instead, and saves the
FT2 "asteroid" rules for when you slam into planets or moons :-)
> I'd like a distance scale that would make a good sized
Still a bit too big for *real* Cinematic scale, but better than 1000 km per mu
<g>
> That'd make make most planets
Not too badly, I think. 100km/mu and thrust-1 = 9.81 m/s^2 gives 1 turn
~143s, or about 2.4 minutes.
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> > As for the distance scaele, while 1"=1000km is OK, I have a few
> > Pragmatically, it makes asteroid- or asteroid field centered combat
> > I'd like a distance scale that would make a good sized
Sorry about the extensive quoting, but it's all relevant.
Firstly, in Newtonian, I'd like a realistic (ie "sufficiently bacwards
technology so it's distinguishable from magic") thrust to go with the
realistic (albeit 2-D) movement. To me, this means 1 Accel = 1g or less.
0.5g would be good, but 1.0g is plausible. A bit hard on the crew, those long
periods of 8g, but with fluid baths, doable with today's technology.
100km/MU, Thrust-1 = 1g(about 10 m/sec), 1 Turn = about 2.5 mins has a
nice feel to it, round numbers, etc. It also allows "table-edge"
planets, which I like.
The only advantage 0.5g has is that it allows finer scales of gravitational
graduation over the table. If memory serves, the radius of the Earth is about
12,000 km, or 120 MU. So we have 1g at 120 from the centre, hence 0.25g at
240. And at 48 MU from the surface, 0.5g. Which
means that we could say that, over a table-tennis table with the
planetary surface at one end, there would be Thrust-2 towards the planet
within 24mu, Thrust-1 at 25-72MU, and no effect further out. Basically
1/4 of the table at 2, 1/2 at 1, and the final quarter at 0.
Sounds as if NSL wouldn't dare go too close...
As regards Cinematic (which I mainly play), as far as I'm concerned the
technology is so advanced that "anything goes". By all means have Thrust 1 =
1g, but 100g is also plausible. Which leads to timescales from fractions of
seconds to minutes or tens thereof.
> Alan Brain wrote:
> Firstly, in Newtonian, I'd like a realistic (ie "sufficiently
No, the *diameter* of the Earth is about 12,700 km (equatorial radius 6378 km,
polar radius 6357 km)
> So we have 1g at 120 from the centre, hence 0.25g at 240.
64 and 128 mu, respectively
> And at 48 MU from the surface, 0.5g.
26.5 mu
> Which means that we could say that, over a table-tennis table with
For an earth-sized planet, this'd be:
Thrust-2 out to ~10 mu
Thrust-1 at approx. 10-40 mu
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Thanks for the correction! Blame it on Y2k <g>. *Sigh* I've actually
done the software for Navigation Systems, become familiar with WGS-72,
WGS-84 spheroids etc etc. Reminder to self: even when using the simplest
figures, do a sanity check BEFORE you post... 2*pi*d would have shown the
error.
> For an earth-sized planet, this'd be:
Right.