Re: [FT universe] was [URL] New Star and Campaign Maps

 ---- aaron wrote: 
> At 10:31 AM 9/13/98 -0400, Tom wrote:
> >> This is something I've been giving some thought about.. how big is 
> >> the (human) explored area?
> [snippity]
> >thus, the vast majority of stars can be ignored. only inhabited 
> >systems are important (where 'inhabited' includes mining camps and 
> >naval outposts). this should simplify the problem somewhat.

> Sorry, Tom, I'll have to disagree here.  Any system with resources or
> planetary bodies -- even asteroids -- needs to be considered,
depending on
> how detailed of a campaign you want.

weeeelll, maybe. yes, if you want absolute detail you will have to
consider every system. however, if you want absolute detail you will
have an unplayable game - we have seen the astronomical estimates of the
number of systems in known space. thus, we must try to find ways to
bring this down to a manageable number.

> Secret/forward military bases, a
> system that a retreating/routed fleet can try to hide in, maybe a
hidden
> cache of SM reloads or spare fighters (a la Wing Commander 3?), all
could
> be established over a campaign game.

absolutely true. in fact, if these things were not established in such a
game i would be highly disappointed! however, i would make two points.

firstly, let me engage in an act of doublespeak. when i said 'ignore all
non-inhabitable systems' what i really meant was 'rather than
considering non-inhabitable systems as separate entities, consider them
to form a nearly continuous backdrop to the action'. given the huge
number of such systems, it is essentially the case that there is always
one to hand when you are out of a major system. thus, things like
forward bases and supply dumps can be established anywhere on the map:
ew just assume that what is plotted as empty space in fact contains a
number of minor systems.

secondly, why do caches, observation posts etc have to be in systems?
the example given was of concealing a cache inside an 'iceball' (like a
lump of comet stuff, i assume; i've never heard this term before, shame
on me). why not just build the cache in deep space? an object a few
hundred metres on each side (allowing for a big cache, all wrapped up in
mylar film or something), located half a lightyear from any system, is,
if anything, better hidden than one in a comet fragment!  likewise, a
fleet may hide in the vastness of interstellar space faily convincingly;
i have seen no proposals for tactical scanners which work usefully over
light-month ranges. building bases, otoh, is a different matter: it is
exteremly handy to have an asteroid to tunnel into, rather than building
a base entirely from matreials lugged in by freighters. oh well, fall
back to first argument.

of course, my second argument is based on the use of the GZG hyperdrive;
if your drive only allows you to jump between star systems (as the more
fun-to-play drives do) then my argument breaks down. however, the first
argument still holds. just. maybe.

hope this helps,
Tom

who is definitely not having a good few days on the list :-) well, i
suppose debate is good.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com