Re: [FT] Evasion

Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:

>1. that presumes that evasion does not come with a penalty to fire
>that makes it undesireable in some circumstances. Then you would have
>two modes. Dodge and Shoot.

My thought is simply "keep it simple." If you don't mind the extra
rules,
then by all means.

>> My next point varies slightly depending on what you think the FT
scale is,
>> but given that beam weapons travel at - or near - the speed of light,
the
>> odds of moving a large vessel enough to make a difference are not
good.
>
>Not necessarily so.

It depends on the scale you think one MU is. At larger scales, you are
correct. At smaller scales, the matter is open to debate.

>Okay, that assumes your firing solution, measured in ten-thousands of
>a minute of angle or degree such that it is tenous to begin with, is
>not badly disrupted by even a minimal manoevre. It may be.

I always pictured beams sweeping across a volume of space (ala Wrath of
Khan) as opposed to a single - or multiple - stabs. I can see it both
ways.

>Something to think of - lasers are lightspeed. Presumably so are
>sensors. Ergo any signal you get will be fractions to full seconds
>out of date. And then you beam has the same travel. So how far do you
>travel in seconds? Some distance. Therefore the manoevres may also
>have those seconds to take effect. Which may be enough to move your
>ship that km that makes the shot miss. I think there is a point.

I agree, but I would prefer to find a simple solution - not saying that
you
don't.

Perhaps if each ship calculated an evasion cost as part of the
construction
process which was based on total mass and total thrust. This relation
might
keep abuse to a minimum, giving high thrust/low mass ships the ability
to
do something.

I would tend to lean towards a position where evading ships could not
fire,
but I'm sure that many would disagree on that point.

Schoon