Re: Fw: Weapons for Newtonian based FTIII

>On Wed, 7 May 1997, Robin Paul wrote:
>> Aye, but this is clearly scenario-dependent, and controlled by house
rules.
>
>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. SNIP

	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
>
>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. 

	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
as
SNIP
>> window in which to fire, before the missile detonates and makes its
attack.
>
>One way to look at it.

Too kind.
> 
>>	   On the topic of using an accelerated 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"?  
>
>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?
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
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.
>
>Rather than repeat myself yet again, I direct you to the response I
gave 
>Joachim.

Oh, goody.

>The point is: Whether the attack succeeds or not, the deciding battle 
>will be fought away from the base.
>
>Is this crystal clear?

	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
fly

	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,
	Rob Paul

"Rob Paul
NERC Institute of Virology 
Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3SR	  Tel. (01865) 512361
rpaul@worf.molbiol.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  "Once again, Villainy is rotting meat before the maggots of justice!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--"