RE: Realistic movement thoughts

In message <n1358016613.26865@uow.edu.au> you wrote:

> hmmm
> 
> sam says...
> 
> >Having drives use reaction mass (and assuming it takes up a
> >significant portion of the ships mass when fully 'fueled'), means
> >the ship's acceleration will change over the course of the battle,
> >as their mass drops.
> 
> but this would only be true if the amount of reaction mass consumed
during an
> action is significant as well as being a significant portion of the
ships
> mass, depending on the acceleration applied to it the amount of mass
ejected
> may be trivial.

Very true, but if that is the case, and we're still getting any
decent acceleration out of the drives, then we're talking _really_
incredible technology.

You can have high thrust, or you can have high efficiency. Having
both tends to require really silly amounts of power.

Unless of course, you go for an Orion design. Hmm...

Orion Stardrive

Mass: Armoured plate equal to 10% mass of ship.
      Acts as armour versus all attacks from the rear arc.
      - 3 levels of armour (equivalent)
      - Reduces damage from missiles by 6 points.
      - Equivalent of 3 levels of screens versus EMP attacks.
      - Halves pulse torpedo damage (round up).

Thruster bombs. You get 100 bombs per 1 mass. A mass X ship
must use XY bombs to get Y thrust that turn. Point cost is
free, but you must spend the mass.

Special option: Gamma ray pulse bombs. Each costs 2 points,
and replaces a normal bomb. When used for thrust, the nuke
powers a powerful gamma ray laser which may be aimed at any
target in rear arc. Does damage as a beam weapon, 3d6/2d6/1d6
in 3"/6"/9" range. No more than one bomb in 100 can be of
this type (for purely game balance reasons).

-- 
Be seeing you,					     ARM not Intel.
Sam.					       Acorn not Microsoft.