Hello fellow Newtonians, Since the discussion thread regarding Newtonian
movement mechanics for FTIII has died out, I think I'll revive them by
offering some ideas for weapons to use in it. Since Newtonian Physics state
that objects retain their momentum unless acted upon by a force, this also
means that any object "Dropped" by a vessel retains the Momentum of the parent
vessel. This means that you have to use Point of Origin or Vector Arrow
Markers for all objects including ships, fighters, missiles and other things.
This also means that all weapons such as missiles, fighters, ships
etc. must all pre-plot their movement and execute them using the Real
Thrust rules. However, after objects have moved, check their movement lines
and see if they crossed during the movement phase, this can have certain
effects...
Sand Caster: Mass: 1 Cost: 3 FTP The Sand Caster is a one arc weapon that may
face any direction, but generally does not face forward, unless someone wants
to damage their ship by accelerating through a Sand Cloud they just launched.
When fired the box
is struck out (expended like missiles or Sub-munitions) and a cloud of
Sand apears adjacent to the firing vessel on the side of the ship
corresponding to the weapons arc of the original Sand Caster. The cloud is 3
inches in diameter and retains the momentum of the ship at the time it was
launched. Sand Clouds drift at the rate of their momentum. If a vessel, or any
other object (other than another Sand Cloud) cross through the Sand Cloud it
recieves damage of 1D6 for every 12 inches of velocity difference. So a ship
travelling at 18 inches of speed in direction 1 travels through a Sand Cloud
with a velocity of 6 inches in direction 1, the ship would recieve 1d6 of
damage. That same ship at velocity 18 in direction 1 encounters a Sand Cloud
of Velocity 6 in direction 6, the ship would receive 2D6 damage. Beam Weapons
fired through a Sand Cloud act as if firing on a ship with an active screen.
Sand Clouds and Screens effects are cumulative. Missiles, Mines, fighters are
destroyed by Sand Clouds, unless they can somehow match velocities with the
Sand Cloud. Needler Beams are ineffective when fired through Sand Clouds.
Pulse Torpedoes may not be fired through a Sand Cloud, but if fired AT the
sand Cloud, disperse them. I usually represent Sand Clouds with Brown Cotton
Balls, you can get these at any fabric Hobby shop. Standard Newton Missiles:
Mass: 2 Cost: 6 Acts like a Missile out of FTII except that for maneuvering,
it retains the momentum of the firing ship and has three turns of up to 12
inches of thrust. It effectively has no facing since it can rotate 180 degrees
in a turn, however it may thrust only in one direction for a particular turn.
After three turns it effectively becomes a mine with 2D6 damage or whatever
effect was selected.
Newton Micro-Missile: Mass: 1 Cost: 3
Acts like a Standard Newton Missile except that it has only two turns of
maneuvering and causes only 1D6 of damage. Newton Sand Cloud Missile: Mass: 2
Cost:6 Acts like a Standard Newton Missile, except that its warhead is a Sand
Cloud. If it hits a target or on the Third Turn (which ever comes first), it
will bloom. This leaves a Sand Cloud in place of the Missile and the Sand
Cloud retains the momentum of the original missile.
Newton Micro-Sand Cloud Missile (Side Arm): Mass: 1 Cost: 3
Acts like a Newton Micro Missile, except that its warhead is a 1.5 inch
Diameter Sand Cloud that blooms when the missile hits a target or on the
Second Turn (Which ever comes first). Newton Fighters: Mass: 6 Cost: 20 Acts
just like a fighter squadron out of FT I & II except that it uses Newtonian
physics to maneuver. Fighter Squadrons have 12 inches of thrust each turn and
can apply that thrust in any direction. Disengagement rules do not apply
unless squadrons matched velocities to dogfight. With all of the missiles,
fighter etc flying around, we'll have to beef up our XDAFs. Therefore PDAFs
and C Batteries act just like ADAFs except they have a range of 3 inches.
PDAFS act as before with their extended range.
Please tell me what you think. I would especially apreciate feedback on the
Sand Weapons. Phil P.
----------
> From: Phillip E. Pournelle <pepourne@nps.navy.mil>
We have played several games now using the Real Thrust movement system,
although we liked it a lot, somtimes the use of Vector arrow markers became
confusing unless each was clearly and distinctly marked, also moving ships on
the table quite often resulted in counters being knocked and moved. That was
just using vector movement on ships. last night we had a game with a couple of
carriers and a total of 7 escorts,(9 vector arrows). Now if we add arrows for
the 10 Fighter groups
in play + a possible 6 more for the Missile carried by some of the
escorts we have 25 vector arrows on the board at once. Also I think having, in
this case, to write orders for each fighter group and missile would slow down
play.
I'm not knocking the use of Vector movement for fighters / Missiles and
others (sand cloud weapons etc) and hope such development will continue
however the additional 'physical mechanics' that may be necessary to represent
them needs to be watched.
Integrating standard FT/MT rules for Fighters and missiles in games
where the ships use vector movement has proved fairly painless. Yes in
'reality' fighters and Missiles ought to follow the same rules as ships but,
we can explain it away with PSB. Ie.that these units use a different method of
propulsion, or in the case of fighters can achieve such high acceleration
factors that fighter movement as simulated in Full Thrust (especially at 24"
move rate) is possible in the 'Newtonian' universe.
> However, after objects have moved, check their movement lines and
Would you apply some sort of proportional movement to the objects to see if at
the point their movement lines crossed they occupied roughly the same point in
space?.
Example: As a Sand cloud can't thrust (and assuming they are launched at the
beginning of the turn) I can fairly easily predict where any potential Sand
Cloud launched by a ship will finish its move. Now supposing my ship after
applying Main Drive, Thruster or Rotation passes through the vector of the
cloud, will it automatically be judged for damage, if so then the Sand Clouds
area of effect is 3" wide and its vector x 1" long. If this is not the case
then without proprtional movement its going to be difficult to judge whether a
hit takes place.
> Sand Clouds drift at the rate of their momentum. If a vessel, or
I can see loads of arguments between players debating whether their ship did
physically pass through the cloud at some point during either of the objects
movement.
> Beam Weapons fired through a Sand Cloud act as if firing on a ship
If I try and fire through 2 clouds will simulate level-2 screens.
I like the idea of Sand clouds in Sci-Fi games (ever since Traveller), I
think a good use of it is as a way of simulating shields, ie a magnetic field
manipulating a cloud of 'sand' around a ship, thickening it in the face of
enemy fire and opening holes to let your own weapons shoot, I suppose it would
also make a
good anti-meteor or Interstellar dust defence (PSB+).
> Standard Newton Missiles: Mass: 2 Cost: 6
This missile would work fine the only cons being the need to plot and another
vector arrow. Would it attack at the end of movement or sometime during it.
> Newton Fighters: Mass: 6 Cost: 20
This makes a fighter group a Thrust 12 ship with 6 DP and 6 C Batteries. I
imagine it would be next to impossible to initiate a dogfight.
> With all of the missiles, fighter etc flying around, we'll
Why the above, if anything using Real Thrust for Missiles and Fighters
probably reduces their effectivness and flexibility.
> Please tell me what you think. I would especially apreciate
Phil, I'm sorry if the above seems negative but we have been playing FT with
the Real Thrust rules for some time now and I know its difficult integrating
fighters and missiles into the same system.
I might be missing somthing major and about to be shot down in flames, but the
above are just my first impressions.
Regards......
> At 10:56 PM 4/30/97 +0100, Roger wrote:
> However, after objects have moved, check their movement lines and
Yes. In my own B-5 Game, I had a 24 Phase based turn that did
this. However, for FT you can initiate it after you see that a couple objects
came within a reasonable range to require an instant replay. The proportional
movement shouldn't be too difficult to determine.
> Example: As a Sand cloud can't thrust (and assuming they are launched
As to the excessive number of vector markers, examine what objects really are
still in play. You will find that many will have passed the enemy and are on
their way outbound, these can be removed, since they won't hurt anyone.
> Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
Not necessarily -- if one group writes down their orders, another
group moves, then the first group executes the orders, you've eliminated the
interactions. The More Full Thrust fighter rules work this way. Now, you may
still have to worry about Player A's fighters moving before Player B's...
> However, after objects have moved, check their movement lines and
I've been thinking about a "fight in the asteroid field" scenario that has
similar challenges with determining intersections. For stationary asteriods, I
was thinking of saying that "if the new
vector (old speed + new thrust) passes within N inches of the
asteroid, you've hit it". Strictly speaking, the path the ship travels isn't a
straight line but rather a parabola or something, but it's close enough for my
tastes and fast to figure out.
For two moving objects, it's trickier, and IMHO you want to avoid
pro-rating movement to figure intersections. Your suggestion that
if the movement lines intersect might lead to some "wierdness" though, for
instance, if a ship is 6" in front of a sand cloud, and both are moving at a
speed of 7" in the same direction, the movement lines will intersect while the
objects never came any closer than 6" from each other.
I like all the weapon ideas, though. I wonder if there's a place where we can
store all these great ideas (perhaps the unoffical
FT page?) -- say a directory with weapons ideas, one file per weapon?
> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
Famous last words...
I see a couple of problems:
First: The trig. Your examples all had neat angles. What if the cloud is
heading in direction 12 and you're going in 11? The relative speed is...
Sq.root((Vcloud - (Vship * sin 60))^2 + ((Vship * cos 60)^2))
A bit more math than I like to do mid-game.
Only the head-on and tail-on cases are simple.
Then, there's the addressed problem of determining whether the cloud hit
at all. With this high damage, I can foresee countless heated arguments.
Nice idea. It just needs to be more player-friendly. How about dropping
the damage (the ships must have some kind of protection against space dust!)
and just using the blocking effects?
Otherwise, I can see the "cast a volley of sand and run" fleets...
Also, I'd replace the per cloud penalty with per inch of cloud.
> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Roger Gerrish wrote:
> We have played several games now using the Real Thrust movement
Blue-tac is very nice to prevent this. Make sure your playing area isn't
miscoloured by it, though.
> At 14:23 02/05/97 +0300,Mikko K-S you wrote:
> the damage (the ships must have some kind of protection against space
8< >8 This is already in MT under 'terrain' and the idea of ships casting
"safe areas" appeals to me. Hide your merchant ships in the 'corral' whilst
the 7th Cav. escorts deal with the pesky Eurasians. YEE HAAAR! (sorry will
take the dried frog pills first thing)
> Also, I'd replace the per cloud penalty with per inch of cloud.
I vote that change
Jon (top cat) SDL
> At 03:58 PM 5/2/97 +0100, Jon (top cat) wrote:
Correct, I derived this from the MT book and brought the damage down. I really
dont think that 1D6 per 12 inches of relative velocity is that great. The
areas of the Sand Clouds are not that large in comparison to most game boards.
By the way, when you fire a Sand Caster, it will have at least 1 inch of
velocity normal to the direction the ship was facing when it was fired since
the original ships point of origin marker is also the cloud's for the first
turn.
> Also, I'd replace the per cloud penalty with per inch of cloud.
I'll have to go back into MT manual for that part. Phil P.
Quick and dirty, here's how I do vector movement. First, I play on cheap
plexiglas sheets. Splatter paint stars on one side, then spray black paint
over that, flip, and you've got a "star-mat" that actually has depth.
The good thing is that you can write on the sheet in china marker. So, for
each ship, draw a vector in the direction of flight equal to the ship's
current speed. Next, select any point within a number of inches of the
vector's endpoint equal to the ship's thrust rating. Now draw a line from the
ship's starting point to that selected point. The ship ends up at that point
facing in the direction of that last vector, traveling at a speed equal to the
length of that vector.
Simple, easy to use, feels very much like the FT standard movement system. But
you have to have a surface you can write on (pins in the carpet or vector
markers don't work satisfactorily.).
> On Fri, 2 May 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> Correct, I derived this from the MT book and brought the
I checked the book... if you mean "equal to one die beam attack" it sounds ok.
But "1d6 damage" is way too much.
> The areas of the Sand Clouds are not that large in comparison
But a sand cloud is not expended in an attack. A single cloud can potentially
damage the entire enemy formation. Hmmm... taking my 54" wide table, that's 18
casters to do a complete sweep. Half or quarter that will give good results
for most setups.
Way too cheap to get rid off all the fighters for starters.
And it sounds like a station killer again...
Stations are fun. They provide good scenario ideas. But they're also extremely
vulnerable to any weapons that can be launched outside the range
of their defensive weapons. This needs very careful balancing -- unless
you're prepared to just scrap all military stations.
> I'll have to go back into MT manual for that part.
IMHO, either the penalty should be binary (if the LoF crosses any amount
of cloud, the same penalty applies -- this is the current "official"
system), OR the penalty should based on the length of cloud area crossed, not
the number of clouds crossed.
> And it sounds like a station killer again...
I haven't followed all of this thread but the thought occurs to me that you
could launch a high explosive warhead equipped missile at a sand cloud and
presuming you hit it, dissipate the particles in the cloud to the point where
they aren't effective. Wouldn't this then mean that your station isn't
invulnerable to sand casters? Especially as missiles have no range
restrictions.
Dan
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Cleyne, Daniel wrote:
> I haven't followed all of this thread but the thought occurs to me
Yes, it would if it was allowed. Phil's proposed rules made sand immune to
pretty much everything except Pulse Torps. Pulse Torps have range of max 24",
which equals 0" when the foe can take a running start and accelerate the cloud
to, say, 100" velocity well off board.
Was it Footfall? Well, some book anyway explored this idea and if you really
look at it, if you want to destroy an object on a predictable course, such as
a station or a planet, all you need to do is to take a big enough lump of rock
and ice, take a running start around the system and sling it on a collision
course.
Unless you have "destroy everything" weapons, there's no good defense against
this kind of attack.
With planets, you can always justify that people would want to capture, not
destroy them, but stations are small enough to be destroyed out of hand.
> Especially as missiles have no range restrictions.
Oh, but they do: 3x 18" move plus 6" attack radius. Unless you mean one of the
unofficial variants.
> 24", which equals 0" when the foe can take a running start and
And of course, opportunity fire wouldn't be allowed.
> big enough lump of rock and ice, take a running start around the
I suppose from that perspective the only defence would be proactive. You'd
have to go after the foe while they were still setting up to launch. This
would mean that sensors would have to be very good. Whatever, it doesn't sound
like it would be a lot of fun to play a side that has to sit in one place and
accept its fate when the other side got around to delivering it.
> With planets, you can always justify that people would want to
But what sort of intrinsic value would a station have. Surely it would (or
should) be a much greater victory to capture a station rather than destroy it.
I think I would perhaps regard the destruction of a base I was attacking as
somewhat pyrrhic.
> > Especially as missiles have no range restrictions.
Hmm, I was going by memory, good thing I don't rely on it for everyday
survival <grin>.
Why would these weapon systems have been invented then. Surely if the most
effective way of clobbering an opponent is to lob a chunk of rock at him, then
the department of technical boffins would have concentrated on improving Large
Rock Delivery Systems(tm) rather than wasting time and money on weapons that
aren't effective in combat. It sounds like the existing weapon systems,
especially the ranges, don't quite fit into the paradigm that we want them to.
Dan
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Cleyne, Daniel wrote:
> And of course, opportunity fire wouldn't be allowed.
There IS no opportunity fire in FT. The game would be fundamentally different
if there was.
> But what sort of intrinsic value would a station have. Surely it would
Compared to the cost of capturing it? That's the jist. Any such target can be
taken out with the rock'em approach. The larger and better defended it is, the
more sense this approach makes. Or the *threat of it* can be used to force a
surrender.
> Why would these weapon systems have been invented then. Surely if the
Not so. LRDS(tm) is useless against mobile targets, such as enemy ships. The
problem is solely with immobile targets.
The obvious answer is not to have immobile targets, but that removes the
fun of stations.
> It sounds like the
IMHO, it sounds like no one really, really thought what it's like to be a
sitting duck, Screen-3 and 100 DP or not.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:) [ bases are helpless against sandcasters]
@:) The obvious answer is not to have immobile targets, but that @:) removes
the fun of stations.
@:)
@:) IMHO, it sounds like no one really, really thought what it's like
@:) to be a sitting duck, Screen-3 and 100 DP or not.
I think what no one's really though of is that if your attacking forces get to
your base, you're already in pretty deep trouble. The sandcaster issue seems
only to be an extension of the modern superiority of offensive weaponry.
Saying bases are helpless against sandcasters is not so different from saying
"Chicago is helpless
against nuclear weapons" - which is true but even in a (limited) war
most windy citizens would not feel themselves to be under particular threat.
Why? Because the bombers that could fly a nuke over Michigan Ave would be
intercepted long before they got in range. So why not just presume the same
for FT? At worst one could make the sandcaster a large weapon so the ships
carrying it could be recognized and destroyed early on but this is just PSB to
make a campaign more playable.
> At 10:32 AM 5/5/97 +1000, Dan wrote:
> I haven't followed all of this thread but the thought occurs to me that
One of the rules I added regarding Sand Clouds was that if a Pulse Torpedo
Launcher targeted the Sand Cloud that it would be dispersed. Obviously other
area effect weapons could disperse the cloud as well. Phil P.
> At 09:46 AM 5/5/97 +0300, Mikko wrote:
> Especially as missiles have no range restrictions.
> of the unofficial variants.
I think you should re-examine my Newtonian post as I mentioned
Missile there as well. They have an even better range than sand clouds in the
Newtonian universe.
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
If you don't mind, I'll turn this one upside down.
> Saying bases are helpless against
We can change anything, but we're discussing Phil's proposed sandcaster rules.
And as presented, sandcasters have *unlimited* range and *unlimited* damage.
Given initial velocity of, say, 1000", they're pretty impossible to intercept.
Even if you're directly in its path, the FT turn structure means you probably
won't get a shot at it. And unlike ships, the cloud does not have to slow down
to make a meaningful attack. It only has to cross paths with the target.
> At worst one could make the sandcaster
That would make it unusable in its "chaff" role... This was supposed to be a
defensive weapon, I think. It just had unrealized offensive potential.
> I think what no one's really though of is that if your attacking
Well, ignoring sandcasters for a while and returning to my favorite source of
controversy, missiles, yes you can take this approach.
But it still castrates stations as military installations. I.e. if the battle
is decided by keeping the missile boats over 60" away from the target station,
the station's weaponry won't matter one teeny weeny bit
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
I would think that a space station will be a form of static defense in case of
vital point. I would like to use Honor Harrington Series as example:
Manticore Worm Hole junction is heavily fortified by fortresses
(I
don't know how many). The fortresses forms 2 rings of defense in anticipation
of the first ring of fortresses can be destroy easily by an
attack. The idea is the fortresses is the only really possible defence against
this kind of attack, and there are no really alternative ways. The fortresses
are there to discourage any attack. Plus the enemy who come through the Worm
Hole junction will always has surprise with the first shot. But with the sheer
number of space fortresses guarding the worm hole, the enemy's destruction is
almost 100%.
I want to agree that space stations are easily toasted, but the idea of
station with weapon is give it chance to survive or at least give the enemy
some second thoughts before attacking stations. I also think that space
stations should have very limited mobility to represent the thrusters that may
help it maintain position. Just my thoughts...
************************************************************************
*
*"To be or not to be that is the question."
*
*To be is infinite better then to be in the limbo flowing around...
*
*So..... Get a life... :)
*
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> >Unless you mean one of the unofficial variants.
1) And they are an unofficial variant. 2) Infinite range is still infinite.
They are more versatile, true, but the range is still only infinite. 3) In
your rules, clouds destroy missiles, not vice versa.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:) So, it still removes the fun of having a battle within the range @:) of
"shore batteries".
Two ideas spring into my head at this point.
Idea the first: armor negates or reduces the effect of sand. Hey, sand may be
fast but it's still small and it ought to be possible to come up with armor
that will deflect it even if that armor cannot deflect larger objects.
Idea the second: pretty much the same as above but only bases can have this
particular kind of armor.
> On Mon, 5 May 1997 12:52:25 +0300 (EET DST), you wrote:
> Not so. LRDS(tm) is useless against mobile targets, such as enemy
Agreed. Satellites can manoeuvre in orbit. Certainly military ones. I do not
see why a station would be unable to shuffle around in orbit.
The other alternative is to put some kind of defense on a space station.
Perhaps the station is equipped with a "positional stabiliser" that locks it
in place and prevents it from moving. This works using "some sort of FTL
field" locking the station to a particular "warpspace eddy" or somesuch. This
stabiliser keeps your SS in place and prevents the bad guy from towing it
away. It also keeps out all projectiles above a certain speed, allowing ships
to dock but preventing the LRDS from zapping it.
Yes, Sand Clouds destroy missiles. Sand Clouds are designed to be a counter
measure against missiles as well as beams. Given that Missiles in FT have been
defined as nuclear pumped lasers (powered and guided Spurt Bombs), they make
poor weapons to disperse sand clouds. Other weapons such as Pulse Torpedoes
and Nova Cannons make great weapons to disperse Sand Clouds, particularly area
effect weapons. Newtonian Missiles use their thrust ratings for the two or
three
turns they are active and then effectively become mines with momentum.
Therefore, it became clear that counter Measures like Sand Clouds would become
important. The Spanish discovered in the battle of Manilla bay that bases are
not always that effective. A Moving fleet can be far more effective to destroy
an enemy than the fortress to stop them. What makes bases so important is the
ability to repair ships...
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Chun Wang wrote:
> I want to agree that space stations are easily toasted, but the idea
But they don't. That's the problem. You could have a station with zillions of
guns and screens and armor and it still wouldn't matter if I
could just stop 1" outside your effective range and nibble you to death.
And that's exactly what you can do with missiles: Arrive 60" away from the
station, conveniently outside the range of all weapons except missiles,
launch, turn away, reload, come back to 60", launch...
The only thing, apart from calling help and surrendering, the station can do
is to hope he has such a mass of PDAFs that he can drop more missiles
on average than the enemy can launch in one salvo.
Jump point -style FTL does give fortresses a bit more edge, because it
limits the number of possible approaches.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:) > armor negates or reduces the effect of sand.
@:)
@:) Well, a special rule like this would limit sandcasters... but it @:)
wouldn't really help against the logical conclusion of such
@:) inertia-based weapons. If I can throw small pebbles at you, I
@:) should be able to throw a lesser amount of larger pebbles... all @:) the
way up to planetoids if need be.
Sure, but there really isn't any way to fix this "problem" because in fact
there IS no problem. If I attack you with a weapon against which there is no
defense, you can't expect to defend yourself against it. If I lob Jupiter at
your base, guess what? You're going to lose.
The issue is one of playability. People like to have bases, people like to
attack them, weapons are available that are inimical to base use. There are
many possible solutions, all of which are scenario
related (back to that topic again). If you're playing a one-off base
attack scenario, set low entry speeds for the attacking ships. Assume they
haven't fired until they get closer. It's defense by fiat but it works fine.
If you're generating scenarios in some automatic manner, say by running a
campaign, you can set things up so that ships will always have to move
relatively slowly towards bases. Here is an example.
Sand Field
This is a system used for base defense. Huge amounts of sand are spread in a
large (how large depends on your PSB, lets just say large enough) sphere
around the station. The sand is widely dispersed and will not cause problems
for vessels moving at low speeds (less than 36" or whatever you prefer) but
vehicles moving faster than this will take half as much damage as they would
when hit by a sandcaster cloud
(depending on how you define that this could be 1d3 or 1d6-1 of beam
damage or whatever). Sandcaster clouds moving at speeds in excess of the
allowable maximum are immediately dispersed.
Now please note that if I roll Jupiter at your base your sand field is not
going to save you. But I don't think that's the point because it can only
happen if the situation is taken to a fairly ridiculous extreme. I know, I
know, optimization is eternal. I say let the optimizer win once and then write
a house rule. And optimize yourself
- it will only make the entire gaming universe more rich in the end.
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> Idea the first: armor negates or reduces the effect of sand. Hey,
Well, a special rule like this would limit sandcasters... but it wouldn't
really help against the logical conclusion of such inertia-based
weapons. If I can throw small pebbles at you, I should be able to throw a
lesser amount of larger pebbles... all the way up to planetoids if need be.
Just pick up a big rock, attach thrusters and AI pilot and ram away!
> On Mon, 5 May 1997 12:52:25 +0300 (EET DST), you wrote:
> Not so. LRDS(tm) is useless against mobile targets, such as enemy
Agreed. Satellites can manoeuvre in orbit. Certainly military ones. I do not
see why a station would be unable to shuffle around in orbit.
The other alternative is to put some kind of defense on a space station.
Perhaps the station is equipped with a "positional stabiliser" that locks it
in place and prevents it from moving. This works using "some sort of FTL
field" locking the station to a particular "warpspace eddy" or somesuch. This
stabiliser keeps your SS in place and prevents the bad guy from towing it
away. It also keeps out all projectiles above a certain speed, allowing ships
to dock but preventing the LRDS from zapping it.
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> One of the rules I added regarding Sand Clouds was that if a
May I inquire as to how so? Pulse Torps are not area effect weapons in any
sense of the word.
Sandcasters are a nice idea, especially the defensive effects, and I can even
stomach some (very) minor damage. But potentially obscene damage levels...
IMHO you'd need to play 3D to stop rather unrealistic envelopment attacks.
As I've pointed out, even calculating the relative velocity is not something
you want to do without a calculator.
Even determining sand hits hints at phases and... (shudder) SFB. No thanks.
Proposed amendments:
1) No damage. Contact with a missile, though, removes both from play. 2)
Shooting through any amount of cloud gives an extra level of screens,
or a -1 to hit. Number of clouds shot through is irrelevant.
3) Due to slight irregularities in the launch, sand clouds disperse to the
point of being ineffective over time. Let's say 6 turns. This is reduced by 1
turn for every full 10" of velocity the cloud has.
Btw: Nosemounted casters are quite ok. In fact, flying in the middle of a sand
cloud might be a good tactic.
> On Mon, 5 May 97 11:32:01 PDT, you wrote:
> Newtonian Missiles use their thrust ratings for the two or three
> Therefore, it became clear that counter Measures like Sand Clouds would
My take on this is that the computer is smart enough to save the last burn of
fuel for the terminal part of the flight, in case the target tried to evade.
Of course, you could shoot the missiles out of a mass driver cannon to give
them a speed boost, and also chuck slugs at people at close range with the
same gun.
Sandy Goh wrote
> The other alternative is to put some kind of defense on a space
> big enough lump of rock and ice, take a running start around the
> I suppose from that perspective the only defence would be proactive.
You'd have to go after the foe while they were still setting up to launch.
This would mean that sensors would have to be very good. Whatever, it doesn't
sound like it would be a lot of fun to play a side that has to sit in one
place and accept its fate when the other side got around to delivering it.
Has anyone REALLY figures out just how they would aim this Rock? All modern,
that is Beam & Missile systems employ continious feedback to home in their
attacks. A Beam system employs a reference beam to lock in on the target
before releasing the major energy discharge that constitutes a shot. A missile
weapon continiously updates its relative position during flight. All a station
would have to do is eject 50 tons of garbage or use it's attitude jets to get
a couple of rock diameters out of the path, and a miss is a miss, two feet or
two million feet. The only way would be to put a guidance system on the rock
and a detonation system to turn it into highspeed gravel. Gee! that's
beginning to sound like a regular missile doesn't it?
P.S. All space stations need attitude adjustment systems or after the 3rd hard
dock the station would be spinning like a top!!!!
Rocks are planet killers pure and simple. It's the planetary gavity well that
locks it into the final approach vector and holds it there despite random
influences.
> At 07:33 PM 5/5/97 GMT, Sandy Goh wrote:
> Therefore, it became clear that counter Measures like Sand Clouds
The terminal phase aspect of the missile weapon occurs during the attack.
Since Missiles have been defined as Spurt Bombs then the AI directs the
nuclear pumped laser at the target. However, the missile has already spent its
Delta V during the first three turns (two for miniature missiles).
> On Mon, 5 May 1997 22:32:38 +0300 (EET DST), you wrote:
> One of the rules I added regarding Sand Clouds was that if a Pulse
I'm sorry for being an idiot but why are you throwing sand? Is it to provide
some sort of defence against kinetic weapons and beams? IMO pressurised foam
that expanded and hardened upon entering space would be a more realistic
approach and give you much more ammunition to play with (how much sand are you
going to need, and I'm assuming that the sand is not sand but some sort of
reflective grit).
You could also make the foam shiny to disperse lasers or give you a whopping
huge radar signature and make people think your little destroyer was a
superdreadnought. The foam would also harden into a block and therefore be
easier to see coming and avoid, which would help the space stations out.
Finally, if the foam was chemically unstable and burnt up after a short while,
you could not throw it at people from a long way off, which is what (I think)
caused this thread in the first place.
> On Mon, 5 May 97 11:32:01 PDT, you wrote:
> Newtonian Missiles use their thrust ratings for the two or three
> Therefore, it became clear that counter Measures like Sand Clouds would
Sandy Goh then Wrote.......
> My take on this is that the computer is smart enough to save the last
I agree, In Newtonian Full Thrust the missile should be allowed three 'burns',
they don't have to be on concurrent turns, you could indeed drop the missiles
and not have them 'burn' till a few turns later for example.
Regards......
> On Mon, 5 May 1997 21:50:59 +0100, you wrote:
> Sandy Goh wrote
Not necessarily since scatterpack munitions and railgun projectiles have a
very narrow cross section so they are able to punch through. The LRDS fires a
big *blunt* rock. Alternatively, the shield could stop everything moving at a
certain velocity so that it excludes accelerated rocks but not docking ships
or mass driver rounds (perhaps the computer switches it on when it detects
something coming, and the mass driver round is too quick to register on radar
in time). The good thing about SF gaming is that you can actually justify any
piece of
gizmo or tech you care to invent. :-) It's no more sci-fi than FTL and
the other capabilities of a full thrust ship.
> and they had better watch out for when we can adapt it to moving
Well you won't be moving if you switch it on. :-) (Which, by the way,
takes several days. It's also rather big, which is another reason that only
bases have it. And it's "locked" to the planet's gravity well so the base can
still orbit...)
> On Mon, 5 May 97 14:10:55 PDT, you wrote:
> At 07:33 PM 5/5/97 GMT, Sandy Goh wrote:
I'm sorry for being so clueless but how on earth does the missile actually hit
anything? If this were indeed how they worked then the hit chance ought to be
less than that for ramming.
Let's assume the target is 5 turns flight away. Your missile burns for 3 and
then drifts towards the target's position. The target manoeuvres in turn 4 and
the laser misses. Are the laser emitter rods steerable?
> At 12:10 AM 5/6/97 GMT, Sandy Goh wrote:
> Let's assume the target is 5 turns flight away. Your missile burns for
Yes. You just use the standard rules from MT for the Missile. If the target is
6 inches away then the attack occurs. This just means that the Newtonian
missile waits a while until it fires. For those who want to track number of
burns per missile, I really don't want to start moving in the direction of
SFB. So the Standard Newtonian Missiles can thrust for 3 turns, the Mini
Missile for 2 Turns.
> My take on this is that the computer is smart enough to save the last
Ever noticed how sci-fi wargear is always dumber than conventional
stuff? I'd like to be able to use one of the burns to change direction in
flight so it looks like the missiles have come from someone else. A terminal
burn wouble be really useful, it's when you need it the most. If I was a
missile I wouldn't like to try to hit an evading target by drifting...
> On Mon, 5 May 97 17:58:56 PDT, you wrote:
> At 12:10 AM 5/6/97 GMT, Sandy Goh wrote:
Suppose I'd better go out and buy MT then. I assume this is More Thrust?
In message <9705052110.AA12516@nps.navy.mil> "Phillip E. Pournelle" writes:
> The terminal phase aspect of the missile weapon occurs during
...where are missiles so defined?
Just curious.
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> The issue is one of playability. People like to have bases, people
Exactly! There is a gap between the logical conclusion of momentum-based
weapons (and missiles to certain extent) and the general idea of space
operaish combat.
That doesn't meant there aren't other such gaps. We just invoke a bit of
hand-waving PSB and forget about it.
> There are many possible solutions, all of which are scenario
I don't like that. It forces the attacker to play like an idiot. More
plausible would be a technological item only available to bases (due to size,
cost etc.)
Like:
Base Meteor Defense System (BMDS)
A combitination of point defense systems, energy fields and
tractor/pressor beams, BMDS protects bases from errant meteors, assorted
space junk and the occasional missile.
BMDS projects a defensive perimeter 6" from the station edge.
The system automatically neutralizes small particles such as sand clouds.
Predictably moving small objects such as missiles are automatically
intercepted and neutralized at the perimeter. Fighters can actually dodge
the system, roll 4+ on d6 to successfully lock on to each fighter group
and stop it penetrating the perimeter. Physical shots not directly represented
on the table (subpacks, railgun shots etc.) are not completely stopped due to
<mumble, mumble>. Count the range for each shot as 6" greater than actual.
BMDS has no effect on objects inside the defensive perimeter.
Mass: 30 Points: 100
> If you're playing a one-off base
Won't work. I'd just high tail out and set up the approach again.
> Sand Field
Doesn't work against missiles.
> extreme. I know, I know, optimization is eternal. I say let the
IMHO, this is not about optimization. This is about suspension of disbelief.
The more things you explain away with "things are just not done that way", the
harder it gets to enjoy the game.
This is my thought also, a station at these tech levels would surely have some
limited thruster movement ( to make orbital changes, etc.). The Star Wars
Death Stars had thrust and apparently FTL capability. Maybe assuming stations
have this type of limited mobility would negate sandcaster attacks and long
range unguided attacks. But Guided weapons would still be a problem.
______________________________ Reply Separator
> On Mon, 5 May 1997 TEHughes@aol.com wrote:
> Has anyone REALLY figures out just how they would aim this Rock?
Just calculate the trajectories. There aren't very many major
unpredictable factors in space. And even less are modeled in FT :-)
> All
And plain old artillery never hits anything, eh?
> A Beam system employs a reference beam to lock in on the
What are you referring to? A real world weapon system?
> All
True, but gamewise stations don't move. Period. And even if they did, they'd
move verrrrry slowly, which is no help against missiles.
> The only way would be to put a guidance system
> that's beginning to sound like a regular missile doesn't it ?
Well, regular missiles are ALSO problematic.
As you might have guessed, the problem here is not that there is a particular
weapon system that can easily destroy immobile stations from outside their
weapon ranges.
The problem is that such weapons exist AT ALL. Be they missiles, sand clouds,
planetoids, kamikaze ships or whatever.
> I think what no one's really though of is that if your attacking
You HOPE:)
^^^^
> So why not
So I'd like the equivalent of a sub.... A cloaked ship that just nips right
by. Again because the station is either considered stationary, or at least
moves predictably, I should have no trouble getting there...
Seriously I think large bases will not be about in the future, or would be
sitting ducks if they were. A nicer way round it is to make it illegal to
shoot at large centers of civilian population, and have severe political
reprocussions if you do.... Of course then we're onto the campain issue again.
-Entropy
> @:) So, it still removes the fun of having a battle within the range
Normal ship skin should be constructed in such a manner as to withstand this
with little difficulty. Consider how fast ships are plowing through space (FTL
or normal space). Even though dispersed, there's a lot of junk out there. You
go fast enough you'll hit enough micrometeorites, and the accumulated effect
would be comparable to a quick trip through a sand cloud. Your ship should be
constructed to deal with it.
Mk
> I want to agree that space stations are easily toasted, but the idea
> enemy some second thoughts before attacking stations.
Who else is reminded of Starfire from the above? ;-)
There are other things you can do to enhance your station's survival in this
matter. An optional rule (that has been discussed in the dim past, and I
cannot remember who came up with the idea first) would be to allow Interceptor
fighters the capability to engage missiles. Then no doubt your base will be
equipped with a fighter bay or four.
Or outlaw missile use. They're optional, anyway (or, following Jon's 'spirit
of the rules', anything's optional ;-). Or allow A and B batts to
'power
down' and fire as C batts in anti-missile mode.
Another thought is...where are the base's support ships? Or are you
postulating a scenario in which a base is stand-alone against an enemy
fleet? Maybe it's just me, but I think that'd be a silly scenario..unless
the enemy doesn't out-range the base in weapons. And if the enemy out-
ranges your base, well, that's what the supporting ships are for. While the
enemy ranges your base, your support ships range the enemy. How you go about
doing this is entirely up to your tactical staff.
I ran a scenario about a year ago (both in PBeM and RL, same scenario) that
involved a base station on one side and an attacking force on the
other. The base station did indeed have support ships in the area - too
bad for the defenders the support ships were rather...scattered. Still,
the base I gave AA batts, and so it out-ranged the attacking force (as
in the PBeM game the attackers found out when on the first turn one of their
lancers went 'poof'). But it wasn't bristling with AA batts; just had a few
for 'heavy weapons support'. I designed the base so it was
*meant* to stand-alone against a small fleet, but it also had assigned
to it a couple of anti-missile/fighter ships and a squadron of
destroyers. The cruisers in the area were just that: in the area.
Mk
> TEHughes@aol.com writes:
@:)
@:) >> big enough lump of rock and ice, take a running start around @:) >> the
system and sling it on a collision course.
@:)
@:) >I suppose from that perspective the only defence would be @:) >proactive.
You'd have to go after the foe while they were still @:) >setting up to
launch. This would mean that sensors would have to @:) >be very good.
Whatever, it doesn't sound like it would be a lot @:) >of fun to play a side
that has to sit in one place and accept its @:) >fate when the other side got
around to delivering it.
I think it could be quite entertaining. Remember that the side "sitting in one
place" and waiting for its doom is the ATTACKING side,
assuming high-quality sensors for the defenders. Running your rock up
to a good velocity and getting it aimed just so is going to take some
time - time that the defenders can use to kill your attacking ships
and push your rock off course. Think seige tower v. flaming arrow -
you're vulnerable until you actually get your attack underway.
@:) P.S. All space stations need attitude adjustment systems or after @:) the
3rd hard dock the station would be spinning like a top!!!!
Sure but how much manouverability does a space station need? Very little,
actually. They don't even need rocket engines, is how little thrust we're
talking about here. Enough to duck a big rock? Maybe, maybe not. I think I
would try to go out and kill the rock rather than take the chance.
@:) Rocks are planet killers pure and simple. It's the planetary @:) gavity
well that locks it into the final approach vector and holds @:) it there
despite random influences.
Well, the nice thing about physics is that it works pretty much anywhere. If
it's not moving (unpredictably), you can hit it with a very moderately guided
missile (whether rock or otherwise). Throwing rocks at a Earth from Mars orbit
isn't going to be very effective, so even for that you need a guidance system
if you're planning on actually hitting anything worthwhile.
> Sandy Goh writes:
@:) I'm sorry for being an idiot but why are you throwing sand? Is it @:) to
provide some sort of defence against kinetic weapons and beams? @:) IMO
pressurised foam that expanded and hardened upon entering @:) space would be a
more realistic approach and give you much more @:) ammunition to play with
(how much sand are you going to need, and @:) I'm assuming that the sand is
not sand but some sort of reflective
@:) grit).
I think the idea with the sand is that things run into it and get hurt. Foam
is less suited for that purpose. Water is even easier to store than foam, and
replenishable as well, but it probably wouldn't the kind of punch we need at
the speeds we're thinking of. Once you hit.1c though, watch out!
> Phillip E. Pournelle writes:
@:) For those who want to track number of burns per missile, I @:) really
don't want to start moving in the direction of SFB. So the @:) Standard
Newtonian Missiles can thrust for 3 turns, the Mini @:) Missile for 2 Turns.
Actually, that is the direction of SFB. Drones (missiles) in SFB remain on the
board for a certain number of turns (usually 3) after they've been launched,
regardless of any manouvering they may perform in the interim. For my money,
I'd say each missile gets three thrust actions because it's far more realistic
and actually not much harder to keep track of than turn of launch.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:) > There are many possible solutions, all of which are scenario @:) >
related (back to that topic again).
@:)
@:) I don't like that. It forces the attacker to play like an idiot. @:) More
plausible would be a technological item only available to @:) bases (due to
size, cost etc.)
Any such item MUST be available to ships as well or it forces ME to design
like an idiot.
@:) Like:
@:)
@:) Base Meteor Defense System (BMDS)
@:)
@:) The system automatically neutralizes small particles such as sand @:)
clouds. Predictably moving small objects such as missiles are @:)
automatically intercepted and neutralized at the @:) perimeter. Fighters can
actually dodge the system....
Sounds like a sand field, but less explainable.
@:) Mass: 30 Points: 100
Hey, it's OK by me as long as I can mount it on my carrier.
@:) > If you're playing a one-off base attack scenario, set low entry
@:) > speeds for the attacking ships. Assume they haven't fired until @:) >
they get closer.
@:)
@:) Won't work. I'd just high tail out and set up the approach again.
Then you've got a new scenario and your GM can start you off at a low speed
again! That's what GMs are for.
@:) > Sand Field
@:)
@:) Doesn't work against missiles.
Uh, last I heard missiles take damage. If Pournelle's sand cloud doesn't
damage missiles, you can consider that ability amended to my sand field.
@:) IMHO, this is not about optimization. This is about suspension of @:)
disbelief. The more things you explain away with "things are just @:) not done
that way", the harder it gets to enjoy the game.
I don't think it's a matter of how things ARE done as much as a matter of how
things CAN be done. Bases are not left undefended. Attackers cannot move
completely undetected. Defenders know how to do
their jobs. None of these are radical ideas - and it's only by
ignoring them that you can really get into some of the situations you've been
describing.
Here's an example. I want to accelerate to speed 1000" so I can deliver a
completely devastating sandcaster attack on the local enemy base station. I
have a bunch of ships with thrust 8. It's going to
take me 125 turns to get up to speed. That's a long time - where is
the fleet assigned to defend the station during this time? They're out there
kicking my ass is where they are! The fleet vs base scenario is just not
plausible, as scenarios go.
Anyway, all that said, I do think sand should disperse some time
after launch - maybe three turns, maybe more. That would reduce some
of these problems by allowing the defenders to intercept the attackers three
turns (or whatever) away from the target and be guaranteed that the weapons
won't be able to hit. As for whether the defenders should be able to intercept
at all, that's a matter for your campaign system or your general understanding
of how your game universe works to decide. I would recommend, for
playability's sake, that you allow it.
> M. Hodgson writes:
@:) > Because the bombers that could fly a nuke over Michigan Ave @:) > would
be intercepted long before they got in range.
@:)
@:) You HOPE:)
@:) ^^^^
Hey, why do you think I moved to Boston "smaller target" Massachusetts? And
then moved 50 miles from ground zero? I'm not THAT stupid!
@:) So I'd like the equivalent of a sub.... A cloaked ship that just @:) nips
right by. Again because the station is either considered @:) stationary, or at
least moves predictably, I should have no @:) trouble getting there...
True enough. It's harder to justify subs in space (although cloaks are part of
the official, if optional, FT rule set). Of course in real life subs are
detectable, too. One hopes that our attack subs would have been able to remove
the Soviet submarine menace before any missiles were launched. But I guess
that's wishful thinking at best.
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> But they don't. That's the problem. You could have a station with
*SIGH* Space stations are neccesarry not as an offence weapon, but it real
purpose should be repair and build ships. It's much effective to
build a ship in space then on the planet side.
So... let's apply what you said to planets... Mmmm... planet cannot move... so
we track a hugh asteriod to drop on the planets.... we should
get the same effect as nuclear winter or ice age on earth(If I am wrong feel
free to correct me.). Therefor, planet is not really defendable either... (I
think some body else mentioned drop a hugh rock on planets
too.)
The point I want to make is, if you REALLY want to destroy something badly,
YOU CAN!!! The problem is why, and what benefit do you gain? In case of
droping a asteroid on a planet, you will almost render the planet inhabitable.
Congratulation you gain a rock that is usless to you. In case of dead space
station, you cannot repair your ship with enemy's equitment. I just think
destroy a space station wouldn't benefit as much
as capture it.
Thanks for listening to my rambling...
************************************************************************
*
*"To be or not to be that is the question."
*
*To be is infinite better then to be in the limbo flowing around...
*
*So..... Get a life... :)
*
> At 08:17 AM 5/6/97 -0500, Mk wrote:
> There are other things you can do to enhance your station's survival in
I have long argued that fighters (particularly interceptors should be able to
engage missiles. Another great defense for the base is the old area effect
weapons... A swarm of missiles and fighters are inbound... Boom! The Nova
Cannon just cut a swath through them and the *DAFs will take care of the
rest... Also put your back to a wall, have your base orbit a planet. Now its
not so easy to hit, especially if it has limited maneuver ability.
Additionally, it makes no sense to have a base without any cutters attached.
Phil P.
> The only thing, apart from calling help and surrendering, the station
what about mounting your own missiles on the base, the base should be able to
hold quite a bit more missiles than a mid range attacking fleet. not to
mention that most bases are built around planets, the gound based defenses
might have something to say about all these ships taking pot shots at the
base.
> At 11:26 AM 5/6/97 -0400, joachim wrote:
Remeber the original context, the missiles conduct their burn, then remain on
the board until their momentum takes them off the board or into a target. By
Joachim's reconing the original MT rules for missiles is SFB
like...
> At 11:46 AM 5/6/97 -0400, joachim wrote:
> Anyway, all that said, I do think sand should disperse some time
The Sand Cloud would have an initial velocity of at least one inch per turn
even if the ship firing it was stationary. This is because the originating
ship's Point of Origin marker is the Sand Clouds intiail PoO marker as well.
So many Sand Clouds would drift off the board or into irrelevance. This also
means since the Sand Caster Cloud was designed to bloom that it would be
scattering out and at some point would disperse beyond effectiveness. It seems
quite reasonable to have Sand Clouds disperse after a certain amount of time.
Three turns seem reasonable. This makes Side Arms and Sand Missiles that more
important as long range interceptors.
> Phillip E. Pournelle writes:
@:) Remeber the original context, the missiles conduct their @:) burn, then
remain on the board until their momentum takes them off @:) the board or into
a target. By Joachim's reconing the original MT @:) rules for missiles is SFB
like...
Insofar as their duration on the board is concerned, yes.
On Tue, 6 May 1997, And yah, up CLOSE I'm a threat. Beyond range 12 I'm
> an amusement... wrote:
> There are other things you can do to enhance your station's survival
I personally use that variation, and it does work against vanilla missiles.
But momentum-based weapons can defy fighter screen on sheer speed alone.
> Or outlaw missile use. They're optional, anyway (or, following Jon's
The last idea isn't too good. You need 6 (yes, SIX) PD capable weapons to take
out ONE missile with any degree of reliability. To wit, it takes 6 MASS of
defenses to stop 2 MASS of missiles... It won't work in the long
run.
> Another thought is...where are the base's support ships? Or are you
While
> the enemy ranges your base, your support ships range the enemy. How
Maintaining my calm posture, I will re-iterate:
Goal: I want a fight AROUND the station, because such scenarios are fun. This
is gaming, and gaming is all about having fun. For me, at least.
Fact: Missiles and momentum-based weapons can destroy an immobile target
from outside that target's weapon ranges. Consequently this is a
zero-risk proposition.
Result: Defending fleet must stop the attackers before they get within
launching range of the station.
Result: The station will never get to shoot at anything, since the battle is
decided entirely outside its weapon ranges. So why put any guns on it
in the first place?
Conclusion: The fight around the station becomes a fight away from the
station. The goal is not achieved.
Is this crystal clear now?
> On Tue, 6 May 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> Any such item MUST be available to ships as well or it forces ME to
Sure... if you can spare the mass. And it might be only usable at complete
stop.
> Sounds like a sand field, but less explainable.
A-a... *Your* sand field dealt out damage based on contact speed.
Anything with less speed could get through. But true, a variation of the sand
field might work as well. One with *very* low safe speed.
> @:) Mass: 30 Points: 100
Can you really spare 30 Mass? Go ahead...
> Then you've got a new scenario and your GM can start you off at a
Then I would ask the GM why is he trying ban my tactics and after receiving no
logical explanation I would leave play disgusted by the
non-impartial judging.
> Uh, last I heard missiles take damage. If Pournelle's sand cloud
I was talking about *your* version, which did nothing to anything moving
less than 36". Incidentally, this includes all vanilla missiles.
> I don't think it's a matter of how things ARE done as much as a
I'd rather not re-iterate yet again. See my last post about the subject.
> Here's an example. I want to accelerate to speed 1000" so I can
A counter-example: Your defending fleet is stationed at the base. Or
where-ever. I don't care as long as I don't have to FTL in right in your
lap. I FTL in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" away. You
detect me and move in on an intercepting course. I accelerate all the way,
headed for your base.
The News Bit: You can't ever match my velocity. You'll get one brief attack
pass at best. Due to FT turn structure, it's likely you never get to shoot
even if our courses intersect. You have to be within weapons range at the end
of the turn... silly, yes. Rules, yes.
You *might* be able to intercept, if you're allowed to FTL in close, *and*
retain velocity in a FTL jump. But even that means the base will never be on
the table.
> The fleet vs base
But it's fun. Or, it would be fun if these cowardly weasel attacks didn't
short circuit it.
If you introduce weapons with potentially infinite range to the game, you
should think of the consequences.
> Anyway, all that said, I do think sand should disperse some time
Guess who suggested that yesterday? Want me to quote myself?
> On Tue, 6 May 1997, Chun Wang wrote:
> *SIGH* Space stations are neccesarry not as an offence weapon,
*SIGH* So what's wrong in giving them some chance to DEFEND themselves?
> So... let's apply what you said to planets... Mmmm... planet
No, it isn't. But it's far easier to justify not destroying a planet than a
smallish military base. Or even a civilian one... remember Dresden!
> (I think some body else mentioned drop a hugh rock on planets
Wonder of wonders! Who could it be? Me. I did. And some other people too, to
be truthful.
> The point I want to make is, if you REALLY want to destroy
> case of droping a asteroid on a planet, you will almost render the
By the same logic, why do you destroy enemy ships? Why don't you just board
and capture them?
It would be really neat, IF you could do it without undue risk, wouldn't
it?
The case is exactly the same with bases. IF you can take 'em, take 'em. But if
you can't, it's better to play for sour grapes and destroy them, so the enemy
can't use them either.
> On Tue, 6 May 1997, mgrover wrote:
> what about mounting your own missiles on the base, the base should be
Won't work. Let me demonstrate:
I arrive at 60" range of your station.
Turn 1: I launch, you launch. At the same time, my Thr8 ships execute a
4-pt turn and thrust away. They will not get a single inch closer.
Missiles move 18".
Turn 2: I thrust away. I'm now about 70" away from your station. Missiles move
18".
Turn 3: I might as well stop here. Missiles move their last 18". My missiles
are 6" from you station and attack. Your missiles are something like 15" from
my ships, and fail to attack anything.
I reload from my supply ships and repeat the procedure.
> not to mention that most bases are built around planets, the gound
Doesn't matter, unless you invent new weapons with greatly improved ranges. If
the base isn't in range, the planet most certainly won't be.
Btw: Don't you think it's funny: A missile is TWICE the mass of a fighter (at
least), LESS maneuverable, yet point defenses are considerably less effective
against them?
SNIP
> Won't work. Let me demonstrate:
Aye, but this is clearly scenario-dependent, and controlled by house
rules. You are therefore in a position to adjust the reloading times, and to
allow defending (i.e. the side with the base) forces to follow the raiders and
try to catch them during their resupply operation. This doesn't require
anything much in the way of PSB to support it.
> not to mention that most bases are built around planets, the gound
> shots at the base.
> maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't
This doesn't take much in the way of PSB. I rationalize it as follows: the
fighter groups' attack range of 6" represents in part the range of their
weapons and in part the vehicles themselves maneuvering close
in to the target. If missiles are representing nuke-pumped lasers, as
MT says, then it's reasonable to suggest that they make their attack from
6"
out _because_ they're unmaneuvreable, and that they therefore have to be
massive to make an effective attack. The PDAFs are less effective because,
although they have a more predictable target, they have a much shorter window
in which to fire, before the missile detonates and makes its attack.
On the topic of using an accellerated rock to attack the station: as Joachim
pointed out, getting the rock up to 1000" velocity takes at least 125 turns.
Using a tug to change the velocity of the station by 1"
takes...
less than 125 turns. Your rock is over an inch in diameter on the FT "ground
scale"? Obviously, you are god and the defenders have already lost. If your
divinity is in doubt, then it's going to take a pretty significant effort to
accellerate it, and the defenders are going to notice. You'll need to have
recce ships providing targeting data, if the defenders are going to modify the
orbit of the station at all, and the defenders can attack them. If you chuck a
huge rock at the station, and it misses by
1"
(FT scale or real life scale!) then it's been a wasted effort.
Cheers,
(Mikko Kurki-Suonio) iterates:
> There are other things you can do to enhance your station's survival
One could always drift back to the 'allow fighters to accel/decel as
ships'
thread, then. ;-)
> Another thought is...where are the base's support ships? Or are you
While
> the enemy ranges your base, your support ships range the enemy. How
Fun?? Fun??? What's this 'fun' stuff ah see pop up heah periodically?
> Fact: Missiles and momentum-based weapons can destroy an immobile
1) I'm *pretty* sure my reply above was a direct response to a point raised in
someone else's post (Phil's?),
2) Your point/position was never in question,
3) Outlaw missiles (as I mentioned earlier), 4) Construct scenarios which
prevent certain tactics (aforementioned
missiles/momentum-based weapon usage)
Mk
> (I think some body else mentioned drop a hugh rock on planets
Mikko, dude, chill on this part a bit. With the number of posts that come
through this list, and with people having other things to do in Life to keep
them distracted (whether it be classes, work, or other stuff), I think it's
safe to say most of us here are probably not keeping track of who said what
how many posts back. A couple posts, a day or so back, but beyond that...hell,
*I* sure don't! Unless the post was stood out in a particularly noticeable
manner (eg, W'Kan's
recent-ish post from the Narn News Network), I'll be the first to
admit I'm not keeping a score card of who said what when. And I don't have a
lot of free time to casually browse the FT archives. I count myself lucky just
keeping track of who is mostly involved in a particular thread.
Mk
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:) > Hey, it's OK by me as long as I can mount it on my carrier.
@:)
@:) Can you really spare 30 Mass? Go ahead...
On a supership you could, pretty easily. And I think spending 30 mass might be
worth it for a device that provides more or less
complete AF/AM protection for your ship and any ship within 6 (or 3?)
inches.
@:) Then I would ask the GM why is he trying ban my tactics and after @:)
receiving no logical explanation I would leave play disgusted by
@:) the non-impartial judging.
Sure. It's probably not a good idea to play with people whose ideas on how the
universe works differ from yours anyway. Eventually there's going to be some
kind of big unresolvable argument, be it this one or some other.
@:) > ... sand field.
@:)
@:) I was talking about *your* version, which did nothing to anything @:)
moving less than 36". Incidentally, this includes all vanilla @:) missiles.
True, but it doesn't include any missiles, FT variety or otherwise, that are
moving at some incredible speed, say, to fast to reasonably
be intercepted by fighters or ships. The 1000"/turn rock, for
example.
@:) > Bases are not left undefended.
@:)
@:) I'd rather not re-iterate yet again. See my last post about the
@:) subject.
I guess this isn't quite clear to me. You want to fight around the base,
within range of tha base's weapons, ie 54". But the problem you're worried
about is essentially that ships will launch from (effectively) outside that
distance and attack the base while remaining immune to any response from the
base. The problem you were worried about in a previous post, the one that led
to this one, is that an attacker can mount an attack which cannot be deflected
in any
way. The 1000"/turn rock cannot be slowed, turned, stopped or
destroyed AND since its entire attack is carried out in one movement turn,
there's nothing anyone can even try to do about it. That's the problem I was
looking at. As for ships firing missiles at bases from 54", that's a problem
too but not one I happen to be worried about.
@:) A counter-example: Your defending fleet is stationed at the
@:) base. Or where-ever. I don't care as long as I don't have to FTL
@:) in right in your lap. I FTL in @:)
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" away. You detect @:) me and
move in on an intercepting course. I accelerate all the @:) way, headed for
your base.
@:)
@:) The News Bit: You can't ever match my velocity. You'll get one @:) brief
attack pass at best. Due to FT turn structure, it's likely @:) you never get
to shoot even if our courses intersect. You have to @:) be within weapons
range at the end of the turn... silly, @:) yes. Rules, yes.
Hmm... yes, that is a tricky problem. I guess this would be a good time for me
to throw a big pile of sand in your way. But then I'm not a paid military
strategist or anything.
@:) > The fleet vs base scenario is just not plausible, as scenarios
@:) > go.
@:)
@:) But it's fun. Or, it would be fun if these cowardly weasel attacks @:)
didn't short circuit it.
@:)
@:) If you introduce weapons with potentially infinite range to the @:) game,
you should think of the consequences.
OK, once more I think we need to consider that there are two different
problems being considered here. Attacking without ever getting in weapons
range of the defender is a thorny issue, and one that I don't have an answer
for. Attacking with weapons that exploit
the turn-based nature of the game is a seperate issue and can, to an
extent, be countered with things like sand clouds that affect areas and cause
damage during the movement phase.
As for your argument that a volume is much bigger than an area, you're right,
but if it stops.9c missiles being launched from the other side of the galaxy
and hitting my station on the same turn, I'll learn to live with it.
@:) > Anyway, all that said, I do think sand should disperse some
@:) > time after launch - maybe three turns, maybe more.
@:)
@:) Guess who suggested that yesterday? Want me to quote myself?
I never said you didn't say it. I just said I agree with it. That's probably
bad form on the net!
> On the topic of using an accellerated rock to attack the
takes...
> less than 125 turns. Your rock is over an inch in diameter on the FT
You'll
> need to have recce ships providing targeting data, if the defenders are
Why use such a large rock? An really large rail gun that sends a chunk of
steel the size of a car would work too. It would need to charge so it couldn't
be a tactical weapon but I don't think a starbase is a tactical target.
+++++++++++++++
+------------+ +----------------+
> On Wed, 7 May 1997, Robin Paul wrote:
> Aye, but this is clearly scenario-dependent, and controlled by house
House rules? yuck. Sure, everyone likes to make them, but to claim something
is not a problem just because it can be fixed with a house rule is a bit
stupid. ANYTHING can be fixed with a house rules, and thus there wouldn't any
problems with any rules at all and we could all go play D&D
and make house rules about space combat. Ergo, no market for GZG.
Anyway, it's a moot point since
a) I'd bring enough missiles to do it in one volley. Wanna see the point
calculations? Show me a base, and I'll show a missile force that completely
obliterates it for half the price.
b) Failing that and assuming the presence of mobile defenders, I'd FTL out to
reload. Even if following FTL is possible, you'd be stripping your base of
defenses *and* jumping into the wolf's lair.
> This doesn't take much in the way of PSB. I rationalize it as
One way to look at it.
> On the topic of using an accellerated rock to attack the
takes...
> less than 125 turns. Your rock is over an inch in diameter on the FT
Did it ever occur to you that you can turn while accelerating? Under vanilla
FT this even dead easy. Even with Newtonian movement, minor corrections are
easy.
> Obviously, you are god and the defenders have already lost.
I guess this is supposed to ironic, eh?
> If your divinity is in doubt, then it's going to take a pretty
You'll
> need to have recce ships providing targeting data, if the defenders
Rather than repeat myself yet again, I direct you to the response I gave
Joachim.
The point is: Whether the attack succeeds or not, the deciding battle will be
fought away from the base.
Is this crystal clear?
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
Missiles are also 50% faster. If point defense was improved against missiles,
players may make little use of them since they are one shot expensive weapons.
Some of that missile mass may actually be the launching system, initial fuel
store, etc.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Anyway, it's a moot point since
No, I do not want to see the points calculations. I've played with people who
can do points calculations for this vs that for all the games
we play, and as a result of their over-cheesing forces, I don't play
with them anymore. If you want to play with bases and you are worried that
missle boats will ruin the game, restrict said base games to allow the base to
survive long enough to make it a fun game. Shouldn't really matter how you do
it, so long as everyone has fun. This is a game, not a math excercise, or an
excercise in who's got the biggest..... whatever you measure your machismo
with. This discussion began with a simple suggestion about a new defense, i.e.
the sandcaster(least I think it did, there have been so many messages, I'm no
longer sure). Whether or not something is REALISTIC is irrelevant, because
this is a game of hypothetical technology which requires you to suspend
disbelief.
Let's move on to a more interesting topic. PLEASE.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:) > I think it's safe to say most of us here are probably not @:) > keeping
track of who said what how many posts back.
@:)
@:) I find it basic courtesy and elementary netiquette to read @:) everything
posted on the subject before hitting "reply".
I think different people have different ideas about what the list is and how
it works. For me it's not a place to argue "my idea is better than yours" but
more a place to search for "truth", whatever that means in terms of FT (and
other GZG). Because of this, I'm not
generally interested much in who came up with an idea - when I hear
one that's good I just sort of append it to my understanding of the "FT
Mailing List house rules" and move on. I think a large portion of the stuff
discussed on this list is consistent and could be used in a
single gaming session - to me that's good because it means that maybe
Jon will absorb it and insert it into the next version of his game. Hopefully
since we have a large number of people on the list, the things that will be so
absorbed will be the things that many people
support - and hopefully THAT will mean that the game will feel good to
many new players who will buy it because it does things the way they like them
done.
So in answer to your well actually it was an answer too, I think most of our
posters have a fairly good grasp of the subject to which they are replying,
but they don't always have a good understanding of exactly who said what. I
think that's great because, if nothing else, it means people will easily
forget all the stupid and unworkable ideas I've posted. Maybe they'll think I
invented all the neat stuff like tractor beams or vectored movement!
On Wed, 7 May 1997, And yah, up CLOSE I'm a threat. Beyond range 12 I'm
> an amusement... wrote:
> Mikko, dude, chill on this part a bit. With the number of posts that
I find it basic courtesy and elementary netiquette to read everything posted
on the subject before hitting "reply".
But they, no prob... I'm was just slightly irritated by having to repeat
myself a few times.
> On Wed, 7 May 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> The point is: Whether the attack succeeds or not, the deciding battle
If every engagements are fighting anywhere near a base, as a standard
engagement. Yes the answer is clear. Then again I just like to talk about
weird scenarios.
************************************************************************
*
*"To be or not to be that is the question."
*
*To be is infinite better then to be in the limbo flowing around...
*
*So..... Get a life... :)
*
On Wed, 7 May 1997, And yah, up CLOSE I'm a threat. Beyond range 12 I'm
> an amusement... wrote:
> One could always drift back to the 'allow fighters to accel/decel as
This really won't work, if you imply newtonian mechanics. If you mean
"accel/decel as ships AND turn at will", then there is a slight
possibility of a successful interception.
The problem is with the FT turn structure. As "firing on the move" is not
allowed, objects with excessive velocities may find themselves pass close
by during movement, but out of range/arc at the end of movement. This
allows objects with very high speeds, say 1000" or more, effectively evade all
enemies except those that started the acceleration with them from the same
place.
Though the extent of non-combat endurance for fighters is never
conclusively explained.
> Fun?? Fun??? What's this 'fun' stuff ah see pop up heah periodically?
It's foodstuff in Paranoia :-)
> 1) I'm *pretty* sure my reply above was a direct response to a point
Yes, but you addressed points I had already discussed.
> 2) Your point/position was never in question,
It seemed so to me. I'll chalk that up to miscommunication.
> 3) Outlaw missiles (as I mentioned earlier),
While possible, I find this unsatisfactory. I'd rather castrate them, so
they remain usable but not overly effective. The "Base Meteor Defense System"
I proposed is one such approach. Giving *DAFs normal chances vs. missiles is
probably the easiest way (but even then they can be overwhelmed).
The problem with missiles is that they don't work that well until you
reach the saturation point -- and then they work too bloody well.
> 4) Construct scenarios which prevent certain tactics (aforementioned
I'd like to hear how you would go about this, apart from the old "you just
can't do that" approach. No, I'm really curious. Can you think of a
logical explanation that would bring a "pick your ships, pick your approach"
style "destroy the base" scenario within the range of the base's guns?
(various people write:)
[...house rules - yuck!...]
> Anyway, it's a moot point since
I don't have the time at the moment to work out the numbers, but I'm thinking
a base with NovaCannon and many PDAFs. I think I'd have a good chance. And if
allowing Interceptors to engage missiles, load up a few fighter squadrons,
too.
If someone has the time for point calculations, see if this will work. My gut
feeling says it will.
> b) Failing that and assuming the presence of mobile defenders, I'd FTL
Fine. As base commander, if you want to come in, pop off a volley of missiles,
then bug out again (via FTL) before my mobile units show up, the time it takes
for you to get from Point A (here) to Point B (reload), the time it takes for
you to reload, and the time it takes for you to get *back*, either I'll have
repairs underway, and/or reinforcements underway.
> On the topic of using an accellerated rock to attack the
takes...
> less than 125 turns. Your rock is over an inch in diameter on the FT
Alright, earlier it was presumed that you got said rock up to speed and let it
go on a trajectory that would allow it to intersect with your target. You
didn't specifically say that, but you didn't not say that, and I think folks
assumed that once you got it up and moving your thrusting force had let its
deadly cargo go.
Are you saying you have a tug on the rock *controlling* it's course now?
Okay...I'll shoot the tug, *then* move the station! ;-)
And if you want to drift into Real Physics, once you get something up and
moving at a high enough velocity, gonna take a HELL of a lot of power to
adjust it's course! Like (I think it was Rob?) said: miss by an inch and the
attack is wasted. Don't have to move the station that far out of the way to
cause a miss. This applies to FT, too, since the granularity of the turns
would come into play. If you're travelling at X and are Y distance away, you
can end up at only points A, B, or C, depending on how many course heading
changes you implement, and which direction. Moving at a significantly slower
speed (ie, base), with a [small] tug could be moved to point Z which is in a
'safe zone' between the calculated target points.
The point here being, you can think of something, someone else with think
of a response to counter it. It doesn't make it a no-win/no-lose
situation. It makes it a gamble against tactics. You can pick any scenario and
someone
will be able to take it apart somehow. Half the fun (uh-oh! not That
Word!)
is trying to come up with something and seeing if/how the other side can
deal with it.
> The point is: Whether the attack succeeds or not, the deciding battle
As long as you are going to restrict yourself to this tactic, yes. Change
tactics. Change options. You may eventually find yourself fighting near the
base after all.
Like you wanted. ;-)
Mk
In message <01IILA5PNXHUC2JADS@avion.stsci.edu> "And yah, up CLOSE I'm a
> threat. Beyond range 12 I'm an amusement..." writes:
Nah... you just put a big cloud of sand in the way for the tug to fly
through...
> In message <3370C956.5EC3@misnet.com> Gary Ballard writes:
[...]
> This is a game, not a
whatever
> you measure your machismo with. This discussion began with a simple
I'd just like to step in here to defend Mikko, because I think you've really
missed his point in this thread, by a long, long way. A seriously long way.
The maths exercises are necessary, now, during the *design* stage of a game,
to prevent the maths exercises *later*, during force design, which is when
they can be detrimental to fun, and break the game.
The physics exercises are necessary too, because glaring inconsistencies are
detrimental to the suspension of disbeleif.
This thread has not been about realism, but about drawing out the
ramifications of new rules and equipment to see if they are worth slotting
into the game. The ramifications of sandcasters, as Mikko has adroitly pointed
out, is that as suggested they turn any sort
of base-defence scenario into a tedious and foregone conclusion.
This is ungood.
Rules cascades, where each rule fixes the last one, are doubleplus ungood.
I'm sure we can all agree that a simple, internally consistant, evocative game
with a fair points system and which does not slide
into lame cheesy tactics is a good thing (or, taken clause-by-
clause, is not in any way an ungood thing worth complaining about).
I, personally, think that the whole meteor thread is a bit of a storm in a
teacup. I haven't the rulebook to hand this minute but we already have rules
for ramming, and for colliding with
asteroids. We even have rail-guns for shooting bases with ultra-
high-velocity projectiles, and sometimes they miss.
> Let's move on to a more interesting topic. PLEASE.
If you want a more interesting thread... start one.
I'm chopping this heavily trying to narrow it down to the main points.
> On Wed, 7 May 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> On a supership you could, pretty easily. And I think spending 30
Hmmm.... I don't use superships, but if I did I'd intend them to be
SUPERships. And the BMDS only delays fighters, it doesn't stop them. It would
give missile protection... but worth the price? If you feel it's overpowered,
allow it only to be used when the ship's velocity is
0.
> Sure. It's probably not a good idea to play with people whose ideas
More like: I can live with scenario limitations if they're given
beforehand. And it helps if they have a semi-plausible explanation...
but if the GM decides to overrule my tactic in the middle of the game "because
he says so", I don't think I'm overreacting if I feel a bit pissed off.
Now for the real issue:
> OK, once more I think we need to consider that there are two
Agreed. No one seems to.
> Attacking with weapons that exploit
That is true... Personally I feel it's a bit gamesmanshiplike... but as I
neither like spending time in bad games nor do I have much choice in
opponents, I like to consider all possibilities before they end up spoiling an
evening's fun.
FT was never designed to handle three-digit speeds, even though they are
theoretically possible. The normal weapons become useless at these speeds, so
they're not really a problem... but some of the newly invented ones may be.
As for the meteor bit... If we were really nitpicking, a meteor in FT is both
indestructible and deals out infinite damage regardless of
collision velocity (FT, p. 26). But that's really cheap...
> As for your argument that a volume is much bigger than an area,
Even if it gives a way to conduct no-way-to-evade, infinite-damage
enveloping attacks?
I've no problem with sand clouds and their ilk, *if* they're purely defensive.
I just think taking their offensive capabilities to the limit
can kill the game.
> I never said you didn't say it. I just said I agree with it.
Sorry... maybe I should cut my caffeine intake...
> On Wed, 7 May 1997, Gary Ballard wrote:
> No, I do not want to see the points calculations. I've played with
Believe it or not, I do this in practice so no one could do it to *me* in a
real game. It takes one to catch one...
You see, if I set up a game and people arrive with radically different ideas
of what's good form, problems may very well ensue. I'm not blaming
anyone (yet), people just have very different ideas how the game should run.
At the least, I spend an evening with a bad game. And if I stop playing with
these fellows as you suggest, I'd soon be left without no one to play with. As
I think I might have told, I think the entire active FT player
base in Finland numbers under ten -- and I already play with half of
them.
I'm a bit peeved with all these suggestions of not playing with people who
don't share your vision (and I hear it a lot). It's easy to say when you live
in an English speaking country, in a big city and go to a university that has
a gaming club with hundreds of members. My only other choice is not to play
until GZG publishes solitaire rules. Or start playing Magic
;-)
Having said that, I really haven't met a truly evil abusive player. I've
met a couple of idiots and quite a few people who had a different picture of
the game than I did, but no true käsemeisters. Ok, so it's not that large a
sample, but I did head the national association of roleplayers for four years.
Thus I believe 80% of the "problems" can be solved by finding the loopholes
before actual play and putting them down on paper with an agreement not to
exploit them.
> If you want to play with bases and you are worried
Can you suggest how to do it in a campaign? "Sorry, you can't bring your
missile boats"?
> suggestion about a new defense, i.e. the sandcaster(least I think it
The problem with the sandcaster I had was that it was meant to be a
defense, but it really was a super-poweful offense.
On Wed, 7 May 1997, And yah, up CLOSE I'm a threat. Beyond range 12 I'm
> an amusement... wrote:
> I don't have the time at the moment to work out the numbers, but I'm
If you can mount a Nova facing each direction on a base, I concede. But I
never use the nova stuff, so it doesn't really help me.
> If someone has the time for point calculations, see if this will work.
Let's assume a military base. 50% of Mass spent on weapons. A PDAF kills a
missile on 6 and it gets just one chance.
Thus it kills 1/6 of a missile per 1 mass of PDAF.
An interceptor, let's assume they get the bonus too, masses 1 too,
but it kills a missile on 5+, and it may get several chances to shoot.
It's slightly more expensive, though.
How many chances? Assume launch at 60", missiles move 18", fighters move in
12". They're not within range of each other yet. Missiles move another 18",
fighters move 6" so they're *just* in range. One shot. Missiles move their
last 18", they fighters turn around and catch the missiles. This is not
specified anywhere (as normally fighters can't attack missiles), but
we'll assume they get to shoot first. Two shots total.
Thus an interceptor stops an average of 2/3 missiles. An interceptor
costs 3 1/3 points.
Ok, lets do calculations... for a vanilla base with only PDAFs and an optional
base with all interceptors.
The base has Mass X:
PDAFs Interceptors
Number of missiles stopped 1/12*X 1/3*X
Cost 3 1/2*X 3 2/3 *X
Cost to stop one missile 42 11
Mass to stop one missile 12 3
A minimal bathtub launcher costs 26 points with Thr8, FTL and one missile.
So.... PDAFs fail utterly in the job they're supposed to do, but spending
about half the available budget on interceptors works -- on the average.
> Fine. As base commander, if you want to come in, pop off a volley of
That depends *entirely* on how long FTL travel takes. If it takes longer to
travel to target than for the target to repair damages, any sort of raids are
also useless.
> Are you saying you have a tug on the rock *controlling* it's course
That has all the problems of high-speed interception I've outlined
before.
> And if you want to drift into Real Physics, once you get something up
Not for minimal adjustments. Most of the vector is pointing the right general
direction anyway.
> This applies to FT, too, since the granularity of
If you really want to nitpick FT, I suggest you check the rules on
asteroids on pages 25-26. The immense velocity isn't actually even
necessary...
> The point here being, you can think of something, someone else with
I actually agree... I'm just still not convinced there's a
cost-effective
way to counter these immense-speed sandcasters. Or AI controlled ramming
ships. Or suicide ships that FTL out within 6" of a station...
> As long as you are going to restrict yourself to this tactic, yes.
But the stand-off is the BEST attack! It's zero-risk! If you can't pull
that off with freely selectable forces, you can't pull off anything.
> On Wed, 7 May 1997, Chun Wang wrote:
> > The point is: Whether the attack succeeds or not, the deciding
I'm sorry but I don't follow you.
The attacker never *needs* to go close the base. He *can* if he's really
stupid, though... therefore the battle will be decided away from the base.
There will never *be* a "standard engagement" near the base, unless your GM
*forces* you to play one. Which would be a bit like me playing Kasparov with
the referee ruling that he can't check me until move 20. It would
limit Kasparov's options for no good in-game reason.
> On Wed, 7 May 1997, Robin Paul wrote:
At the risk of making myself crystal clear, my intention was not to say
"Anything can be fixed with house rules...". I noted that the tactics
of the side attacking the base appear to be dependent, _at the strategic
level even if not at the tactical level_, on ships which have no further
utility without immediate resupply of their missile stocks. There are no
specific rules in ether FT or MT governing such resupply. The rules on FTL
travel are deliberately vague, to allow different local interpretations.
Therefore, the structure of the fleets engaged, and the subsidiary missions
which those fleets must be able to perform (such as resupply and the defence
of the fleet train) are dependent on the scenario and on the particular
local selection of "official" and "unofficial" rules. Clearly, no-one
is going to use a station in a tournament game, so the presence of the station
is scenario dependent, and its armament, if any, is incidental. You want to
fight around the base? Here you go: "Fleet Mission: board Research
Station LZ-477 and capture the technobabble blue-prints in its computer
banks."
> Anyway, it's a moot point since
Since the effect of being forced to repeating myself is to make my blood boil,
I refer you to the gist of my comments above, on the topic of
scenario-dependence.
> This doesn't take much in the way of PSB. I rationalize it
Too kind.
> On the topic of using an accelerated rock to attack the
takes...
> less than 125 turns. Your rock is over an inch in diameter on the FT
No; it's merely sarcasm...
While I am undoubtedly a bit stupid, I had noticed that manoeuvre was possible
in FT. However, I had formed the impression that it required a drive system.
Whether this is mounted on the rock (What is the points cost for a
relativistic missile? Smells like one of those fiendish and stupid house rules
to me...) or on an accompanying vessel, it is open to attack.
In basic FT/MT, the minimum course correction is 30 degrees, which
doesn't allow for much fine aiming at v=1000". If movement is Newtonian, then
the station need only make small random adjustments for the situation to
become mathematically complex and unpredictable.
> If your divinity is in doubt, then it's going to take a pretty
You'll
> need to have recce ships providing targeting data, if the defenders
Oh, goody.
> The point is: Whether the attack succeeds or not, the deciding battle
Transparent. You say you wish to play a scenario involving a station, then,
because of your particular selection of rules and attitude to scenario
construction, you say that, as it is possible to devise tactics which might
destroy the base without approaching it closely in ships, station weaponry is
entirely useless and anyone with a different opinion is
the half-wit spawn of Beelzebub.
> maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't
This has been the single most ill-tempered discussion I have
ever seen on the FT list. I disagree with the ideas, politics, religions,
world-views and tastes in fast-food of many of the posters here, but
I've never thought any of them were idiots, fiends, or trying to annoy me. I
heartily agree that this is a discussion which won't be missed, and I hope we
can all return to the usual friendly character of the FT list.
Cheers,
Oh dear, I must have hit a nerve. Please don't take any of this personally as
it certainly isn't meant to be. I may not agree with logic
of your arguments, but that doesn't mean I have any unfavorable impression of
you as a person. I'm sorry if I've given this impression.
> On Thu, 8 May 1997, Robin Paul wrote:
> At the risk of making myself crystal clear, my intention was
Agreed... thus arguing these background dependent things is a bit futile. I
get drawn into it too, yes.
So lacking any Official(tm) campaign rules, I think it's best to limit
oneself to one-off games when evaluating the soundness or lack thereof
of various tactics.
> Clearly, no-one is
I want to fight around a base and blow the bloody thing up. The boarding
goal is one way to do it, but is it really the only way? Can we agree that
boarding and capturing is usually costlier than simply destroying the target?
Thus attackers unsure of their superiority are likely to consider destruction
an option.
Given that I'm running a campaign, I'm most likely to run into situations
where people want to destroy each others' military stations. I'd like to
see the station play a part in those battles.
> Since the effect of being forced to repeating myself is to
With no prejudice, I ask you to show me a scenario, that involves the
destruction of a base, freely selectable forces (besides the base) and freely
selectable approach, constructed in such a way that it makes sense for the
attacker to get close to the base.
Please, you say you know how to do this and I'd really really like to know.
Just tell me and I can sleep again.
[Fighters and missiles vs. *DAFs]
> >One way to look at it.
What would you have liked me to say? "Yes, Rob, that's the one true
vision. Thank you!"? I feel I have a no-win scenario here.
> While I am undoubtedly a bit stupid,
I most specifically never said nor implied that. You may have failed to
consider one aspect when forming your argument, but we all get the brainfade
every now and then.
> However, I had formed the impression that it required a
Well, it must get its motive power from somewhere. Provided the rock (and its
escorts) can accelerate to huge speeds a safe distance away, they are
theoretically open to attack, but in practice the interception is extremely
difficult to pull off.
Quite simply because FT was never designed to be played on a truly infinite
map.
> In basic FT/MT, the minimum course correction is 30 degrees, which
That is a bit of a problem. But then again, tugging bases isn't vanilla rules
either. Bare me with the assumption that less granular turns are possible.
> If movement is Newtonian, then the
I'm not so sure... the farther away the missile is, the easier it is to
correct the course for small movements of the base. The best bet for the
base is to move at the last possible moment, hoping the rock does not have
enough directional thrust to compensate in time.
Let's assume the rock is 1000" away, headed straight for you at velocity
1000". Assume base has a tug with thrust X. Assume the rock has
directional thrust Y available. Assume real-time thrust application (or
this becomes a guessing game -- not that that would be too bad).
The base want to get as far as it can away for the path of the rock. So it
takes a course right angles to the velocity of the rock. The rock follows with
equal sideways thrust.
Whether the base can get away scot free is decided simply by which one has
more directional thrust available. The velocity of the rock does not make
it harder to make slight course corrections -- it only limits the
timeframe available for those corrections. But the base has also the exact
same timeframe to make evasive maneuvers (with the aid of the tug), so it
basically boils down to who has more directional thrust available.
Unless the rock is shattered into a hail of stones in the very terminal stage.
That would add something of an area effect. And protect planets with
atmosphere from the bits that miss...
> Transparent. You say you wish to play a scenario involving a
Well, that about sums it up.
> anyone with a different opinion is the half-wit spawn of Beelzebub.
Not so. I have asked for people to prove their points, yet I've received
no proof within the parameters I've outlined. Please give me a
counter-example that proves your point and I'll concede you're right.
If you feel the parameters for the solution I've outlined are somehow flawed,
we can discuss that too. As I have with some people.
The best such challange has been that bases are simply too valuable to be
destryoed. I don't think there's strong enough evidence to hold that as
universal truth.
> This has been the single most ill-tempered discussion I have
Intense, yes. Foul-mouthed perhaps. Short-tempered too. But truly nasty?
Go see alt.flame for those.
> I disagree with the ideas, politics, religions,
I
> heartily agree that this is a discussion which won't be missed, and I
I will ignore the implications herein.
Meanwhile, feel free to peruse my hate page.
In a message dated 97-05-08 02:17:53 EDT, it was written written:
<< The maths exercises are necessary, now, during the *design* stage of a
game, to prevent the maths exercises *later*, during force design, which is
when they can be detrimental to fun, and break the game.
The physics exercises are necessary too, because glaring inconsistencies are
detrimental to the suspension of disbeleif.
> [quoted text omitted]
I strongly agree soooooooooooo! ====>>>
Here are some basic maths for sand casters:
Given a sphere of sand 2,000 meters in diameter ( 1km radius) and putting the
sand density at 10 gms per cubic meter ( 1/3 oz.) this works out to a
volume of 4.2 billion cubic meters and a mass of 42,000 metric TONS (2,200 lb.
for
the unscienced. ) [[ V = 4/3 x PI x Radius cubed ]] A lot more than
WWII wet Navy aircraft carrier ( Essex = 35,700 tons)! Now scale this up any
way
you want to for FT - Now just how many km in a 1" sphere of sand?
Remember this is an inverse cube problem!
Example - 100km radius sphere at say only 1 gm per cubic meter = 4.2
billion metric tons of sand. One may argue about the density needed create
damage ( these spaceships are already shrugging off micrometeorite damage so
there has to be a minimum density to the "sand" to do damage) but any
"reasonable" estimate says this still requires a lot of mass to achieve any
size sphere that has been mentioned.
Do the numbers - how many mass points is this weapon? And what
weapons will you sacrifice to put this on? Any reasonable sized sphere (in
practice more of a thick pancake) will be very heavy and very "thin" so the
damage would have to be low.
I really don't think this is a feasable weapon for a warship. But to put a
positive note to this - let's say I take 3 large cargo ships fill them
with "sand" stand them out a ways from something fixed and small ( the
geostationary orbital ring where all the communications satilites sit -
22,400 miles up for Earth) give them an escort of warships and I think you
might have a scenerio! One side has to protect the the cargo ships until
they dump sand at a predetermined speed and time (matching orbit -
reverse direction to sats), and the other side gets points for each cargo ship
they force out of the dump window ( less sand lowers # of HITs on the
satellites.) This is a low tech weapon to be used by those who have few
warships. As a
special weapon it should be difficult to use and limited in targets -
that's what makes a good game!
Second point - space stations and other ships are bad targets they can
or should be able to move out of the way ( downer!) On the positive side here
are some of the many targets that a small sand caster would be able to hit:
1. Communications ring ( 22,400 mi. for earth) Hundreds of individual sat's
couldn't be moved in time! { or at a Lagrangian Point?}
2. Mining operation on large asteriod.
3. A small moon installation. A lot of chemical separations require gravity to
work.
4. Large Array Telescope in orbit ( optical or radio) or in free space away
from lights (read sun here.) Are they using this for military intelligence?
There are others which I leave to your imagination.
To end my essay I would like to say that I am trying to be positive, and add
to the discussion on sand casters and not just talk about how they won't work.
I would just like to keep this in the Newtonian Universe.
A Newtonian Tom Hughes
> M. Hodgson writes:
Why bother with a cloaked ship? Put the cloaking device on a big rock. Gets
around the station's meteor defense systems as well.
In message <199705061546.LAA05228@sparczilla.East.Sun.COM> Joachim wrote:
> Here's an example. I want to accelerate to speed 1000" so I can
That's only true if you don't have cloaking. If you do, then you cloak the
ships. The defenders don't know they're being attacked until the space station
goes boom.
You might be able to detect the enemy coming out of hyperspace (depending on
campaign), which might give you a chance to set up your own sound clouds to
hit incoming cloaked ships, but the attacker still has a big advantage.
> At 01:39 PM 5/11/97 +0100, you wrote:
It shall be as you command Grand Admiral Thrawn! <G>
In message <3.0.1.32.19970511204853.006a28ec@mailhost.mint.net> you wrote:
> At 01:39 PM 5/11/97 +0100, you wrote:
Okay, so it's not a totally original idea:)
(for those not in the know, another use is to cloak lots of rocks, and put
them in orbit around a planet. The desired
effect is to disrupt shipping to/from that planet.
Effectively a minefield which is a real pig to clear).
> (for those not in the know, another use is to cloak lots of
or, since for every measure there will eventually be a counter-measure,
how about seeding an area with cloak generators. Forget the rocks. It'll drive
everyone batty knowing that something is out there but not knowing for sure
just what. Kinda like a bogey.
I've been offline for almost a week, and jiminies y'all are a busy bunch! I
thought about just letting this all be, what with all the other base talk
going on, but I figured Mikko'd think I was weaseling out on replying.;)
> 4) Construct scenarios which prevent certain tactics (aforementioned
If you want to open the 'pick your ships, etc' up to your players, that'll put
you where you don't want to be. My reply here was to construct scenarios in
which certain tactics are not available. This means you cannot do the 'pick
your ships, approach, etc' methods. When I construct a scenario, I outline
what is available and what is restricted, and what isn't around.
Example: about a year ago I ran a Narn-Centauri base attack scenario. I
designed the ships for both sides, set up the basic positions, distributed the
forces to the players...and let them loose! Details you can pick up at:
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~indy/full-thrust/recent-game.html
Anyway, the point here being I constructed a scenario in which certain tactics
(your swarming of missiles point) are not, could not be used. No one
complained that they couldn't do or perform certain tactics or use certain
weapons
(oh,
there was some good-natured grumbling about 'gee, wouldn't it be nice if
I had a...', but nothing serious).
If this isn't your bag of candy, to restrict things so 'tightly', then you
can *still* construct a scenario with the 'free-use' idea ('free-use'
meaning you can use anything in the rules you want). You then should place
certain restrictions on things so they are not abused. Your missiles, for
example. If you want your players to have XXXX pts available to construct
ships of their own designs, with whatever weapons they want, fine. Then tell
them they cannot have more then X number of missiles. Why? Because there
aren't that many around in the Empire (or what have you) to allocate fully to
this little campaign. They're not an unlimited supply, and the best that can
be scrounged up are X number of missiles. Maybe this smacks to you of the 'you
just can't do that' routine, but I think it's quite reasonable. You have given
a valid reason why 'they' cannot have more than X something or others and it
would fit easily into an overall campaign.
Well, I think it would fit easily into one. YMMV.
If you're playing with people who *insist* that if it's in the rulesbook they
can have as many as they want up to their maximum point spread...I
can't help you there. Mount nova cannons in response, I guess. ;-)
Mk
> On Wed, 14 May 1997, You're an annoying bunch...but you're cute. wrote:
> If you want to open the 'pick your ships, etc' up to your players,
In other words, you agree it's not doable in a campaign with freely selectable
forces?
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:) On Wed, 14 May 1997, You're an annoying bunch...but you're cute. wrote:
@:)
@:) > If you want to open the 'pick your ships, etc' up to your @:) > players,
that'll put you where you don't want to be.
@:)
@:) In other words, you agree it's not doable in a campaign with @:) freely
selectable forces?
Well this question wasn't addressed to me but I won't let that stop me. In my
opinion, the situation you're talking about isn't doable in
a one-off scenario with freely selectable forces, but it is doable in
a campaign. In a one-off scenario (attack the base) the aggressor can
choose any combination of weapons systems. Missiles, for example.
There's no penalty paid for the fact that missiles are single-shot
weapons because, in the scenario, you only need to fire them once. In a
campaign, however, things are different. In a campaign, expendable munitions
need to be restocked before the ship can use them again. That means that the
former defenders, now unthreatened due to the unarmed status of their
opponents, can rush into enemy territory and destroy the supply depot from
which the munitions come. Interestingly, this leads to another "attack the
base" scenario, only with the sides reversed.
So yes I think this can work with freely selectable forces in a campaign. If
you rely too heavily on expendable munitions (not just missiles but also
fighters, submunitions, scatterguns) you run the risk of having your supply
lines cut by a fleet that can operate independently of any logistical support.
> On Thu, 15 May 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> In
While I agree with the basic idea, I think it depends on background variables
like is FTL travel traceable, how long does reloading take etc.
> So yes I think this can work with freely selectable forces in a
The operative words here are "too heavily". I haven't proposed composing
your entire fleet of pure missile boats. I *have* proposed using an
overwhelming concentration of them when they're best suited for the task. As
it is, they suck for defense, so you'd best have something else too.
It all boils down to point balances. Assume two sides of equal points,
X.
Each side also has an armed base worth 25% of X. Assume it takes 12% of X
points worth of launcha-tubs to massacre the base.
Ok. A has 12% missile boats and 88% "normal" ships. B has all normal ships.
A attacks B's base with his missile force. The base is destroyed but the
launcha-tubs have expended their ammo. Meanwhile B executes a perfect
counter-attack against A's base.
However, A has the rest of his ships waiting. The balance for the battle is:
B: X points of ships
A: base + remaining ships = 113% X points
Sounds like a losing deal for B to me. He lost his base, he's facing a battle
against a superior enemy and there's even more enemy ships coming
in for a reload.
It boils down to the exact numbers in the end. Even if you assume the missile
force is destroyed in launch (i.e. they're unable to reload at all), an even
trade is worth considering. And with most vanilla setups, it
takes far less than equal points to missile-fry a base...
> by a fleet that can operate
I must say I'm not overly fond of the "lasers have unlimited ammo" school of
thought. All forces need logistical support. You need reaction mass, food,
replacement parts, maintenance checkups and just plain rest every once in a
while. True, some units have better endurance than others, but there's no such
thing as unlimited endurance.
Base module:
Mass-1, merchant hull.
No weapons.
No systems.
3 points.
500 of them...
Only joking.