Re: Vector Rules

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Imre A. Szabo wrote:

Status: RO

> If you ignore friction, I'll take you on; but I want someone ten times
> taller then you to turn my log.  You are using same size engines to
turn
> different size objects.  Get real.  If I have a ship 10 times bigger,
> I'll have 10 times bigger manuevering thrusters...

You're changing the grounds of the argument /and/ introducing a new
fallacy at the same time.  To address both:

a) The whole point is that the larger vehicle /requires more thrust to
turn at the same rate/.  First and foremost.  Secondarily,

b) You assume a linear increase in engine efficency with engine mass. 
If
the drive is based on conventional technology, this will /definitely/
not
hold, in fact, efficency will probably fall off fairly sharply with size
if conventional means of acceleration are used, whether that be
reaction-mass throwers or ion drives.  If you're using some
ultra-science
wave-surfing pulse hyper-skipper as your thrusters, all bets are off,
but
you might as /well/ have 0 rotation time since you're firmly in the
realm
of fantasy anyway.

> The G-forces arguement doesn't hold water.  The crew would be
stationed
> at the center of the ship where the effects will be minimum, and the
> equipment will be designed to handle it.  If you think there will not
be
> enough room for the crew in the center of the ship, you are wrong. 
> Contrary to Star Wars and many sci-fi novels, crew sizes will be very
> small.  Men don't man most naval gun turrets directly now (men
> physically in the turret); what will it be like in 200 years???

I won't even deign to list the number of assumptions you're pulling from
some obscure crevasse in this paragraph.

What I /will/ state is that were I designing the space-based defense
forces of 200 to 2000 years in the future, there'd be no people at /all/
involved.  Flocking algorithms and emergent behavioural and reactive
systems are quite good enough today to build contingency planning cores
around which you craft a cheap and small weapon-beriddled hull and small
(and thus efficent) thruster array.  Put them in stationkeeping
positions
or on patrol orbits.  They're cheap enough to lose tonnes of them to
accident and malfunction and, unlike humans, don't get bored and are
intrinsically better combatants.  If you really need the human elements,
or have humans on site for some reason, they can act as 'strategic
control' for the drone craft, directing inputs into their overall
behaviour from /well/ behind the battle lines.

Of course, it'd be boring as hell to game out but it'd make an
intriguing
computer game on the scale of UNNATURAL SELECTION or SIMLIFE.

Mind you, in 200 years we /might/ have humans in fighters that don't use
reaction mass zipping through space like WWII pilots and talking into
cheap radios.  Humans are funny about war; sometimes its a step forward
to
go back.

> One last point just in case no one has made it yet (I'm fairly knew to
> the list). There is only one reason why the shuttle and other current
> technology spacecraft use vector movement instead of "cinematic
> movement," fuel.  Spacecraft CAN manuever just like you see in Star
Wars
> (hyperspace jumps ommitted).	It just takes lots of fuel to do so and
at
> $1,000's per pound to orbit, every pound of fuel, or anything else for
> that matter, counts.	

Actually, there's another reason: physics.

Spacecraft that look like X-wings and TIEs cannot maneuver like you see
in
SW.  They'd have to be oblate or spheroid with thruster ports covering
80%
of their exterior to pull off maneuvers that mimic the motion of winged
vehicles in an atmosphere to move like that.  Worse, beyond inefficent,
motion like that makes you a prime target for weaponry.

Want to see realistic vector movement in space?  Watch the Star Furies
on
B5; non-combat motion is point - thrust - coast x Xmin - reorient -
thrust
- coast - repeat.  Combat motion significantly shortens the coast period
because its trivial to plot the vector of a non-accelerating vehicle in
0g
outside of a gravity well (and not too hard in one).  A good set of
vector
movement rules that capture this are the space combat rules from DP9's
JOVIAN CHRONICLES.

ObGZG: The real problem at the heart of the matter is /what is the
relative scale of distance and time/?  If each inch is 15km and each
Turn
5min, it makes sense for a massive battleship to take significant Turns
to
turn around.  If inch is 5k km and a Turn is 2hrs, then it makes far
/less/ sense; in a tactical scope, turning the ship about /would/ be
free
at that scale.

-- 
[  Alexander Williams {thantos@alf.dec.com/zander@photobooks.com}  ]
[ Alexandrvs Vrai,  Prefect 8,000,000th Experimental Strike Legion ]
[	     BELLATORES INQVIETI --- Restless Warriors		   ]
====================================================================
      "If not me, who?	If not now, when?  If not this, what?"
	 "In nomine malas portas, convoco Hasturam Nefas."