Re: Fw: Weapons for Newtonian based FTIII

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
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.  

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
> 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." 

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
make my
> blood boil, I refer you to the gist of my comments above, on the topic
of
> scenario-dependence.

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.
> 
> Too kind.

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
> 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.

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
doesn't
> allow for much fine aiming at v=1000".  

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
> station need only make small random adjustments for the situation to
become
> mathematically complex and unpredictable.
 
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
> 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 

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
ever
> seen on the FT list. 

Intense, yes. Foul-mouthed perhaps. Short-tempered too. But truly nasty?

Go see alt.flame for those.

> 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.

I will ignore the implications herein.

Meanwhile, feel free to peruse my hate page.

-- 
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 |