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

At 08:24 AM 9/15/98 -0400, Tom wrote:
> ---- aaron wrote: 
>> 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.

Well, yeah.  I suppose I should say I was arguing a bit from a "Devil's
advocate" position; I don't think I'd want every niggling little detail
mapped, but I think I'd rather have all star systems down than just
declare
a "continuous backdrop" like you said below.  For one thing, systems are
a
lot easier to find, for people on both sides, and still large enough to
hide in without retreating to interstellar space.  Heck, there's the
whole
Oort cloud thingy....

[okay, I'm not going to try reformatting all your paragraphs any
more....]
>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.
>

Well, the thing that bugs me there is just that it makes it
nigh-impossible
for one's opponent to then find the dumps.  Much less, as I mentioned,
one's own side. ^_-  I'd rather play in a Stars!-like style, with a
point
specifying either a single system or a cluster of systems, then have a
galactic morass of systems... aside from which, I don't think ly
distances
are really "on hand" even with FTL. ^_^;

>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). 
>

2300AD term.  Something like Pluto, or (better yet) Europa.

>why not just build the cache in deep space? 

Well, in this case the base was specifically a fuel plant as well as
weapons storage; it was carving out the ice, cracking it and storing the
LH
and LOX.  Can't do that in deep space.

[snip]
>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.
>

<grin>	Well, then you can get into self-propelled bases like Gerrold's
Starbase in the Star Wolf books; only the self-aware computers on board
the
ships can run the algorithms to decode where Starbase will be at any
given
time, IIRC.  Which has it's own set of problems, really.

>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.
>

<grin>	Actually, if you want to have fun, you could specify a *minimum*
distance an FTL drive must travel, so to get to Alpha Centauri from Sol
you
have to go through, say, Arcturus or something.  And if you miss your
destination by half a light-year it'll take two long jumps to get you to
the right place... hmmm....

(Okay, so that doesn't have a whole lot to do with this discussion, but
the
idea just popped into my head.	Use it as you will....)

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

Yup! ^_^
					Aaron Teske
					ateske@HICom.net