Re: Fw: Weapons for Newtonian based FTIII
From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@s...>
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 14:47:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Fw: Weapons for Newtonian based FTIII
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
ships'
> thread, then. ;-)
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
raised
> in someone else's post (Phil's?),
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
> missiles/momentum-based weapon usage)
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?
--
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me? | - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/ | hateme.html |