Re: Sensor Range Question [Evasion]

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

>djwj wrote:

>> (3) In all the sci-fi that I have been exposed to Jump engines need
>>to use > certain jump points, and can only fold so much space at a
>>time.

>Examples of sci-fi backgrounds that do not require specific
>backgrounds: Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Honor Harrington... the
>list goes ever on and on. B5 and HH have specific points where
>hyperjumps are easier than elsewhere, but (most) ships aren't
>*required* to use them.

Real Theoretical physics here, you have been warned:
 "Warp" "Hyperspace" and "Jump" drives are based on diffrent ways of
manipulating space. "Warp" drives isolate the warping ship in it's own
pocket of space and propell that pocket at FTL speeds, a doubious method
of
FTL at best, but it does neatly get around the fact that a ship in some
way
traveling through "realspace" at FTL speeds is very likely to hit
something
and be destroied. "Warp engines are used in "Star Trek" (the origination
of
the scientific use) , Possibly Star Wars, only because Star Wars
casually
ignores the Realities of 3Relativity.

"Hyperspace" drives assume that a ship can turn itself at right angles
to
reality (travel through the 4th dimention of 4D space) and cross gaps
between the folds in space. Hyperdrives are limited in how far someone
can
travel by how much space is between the fold. Example:

Take a long strip of paper with three dots on it, two on the ends and
one in
the middle

*			 *			  *

if you bend the paper so that  the first two dots line up horizontally,
put
one finger between them so the paper isn't touching itself,(Diagram,
edge
view of paper, * = dot, 0 = finger):
_     /
 *\0/*
   | |
   U
 you can see that the  distance traveled through "Realspace" (the paper)
is
greater than the distance traveled through "Hyperspace" (your finger)
Now
bend the excess paper and the third dot back down to line up with the
second
(Diagram, edge view of paper)
	 n
_     /   \
 *\0/* 0 \*_
   |  |
   U

If you are traveling from point 1 to point three you have three options.
The
fastest is to travel through each point, jumping into hyperspace as soon
as
your drives will permit it. For the second option you could hyperjump
between two points, and travel the rest of the way in realspace.The last
option is to go around the entire region, completely in hyperspace, but
this
can be tricky as the fold of space is relgated by the gravitational
wells
that are inside it (the calssic black hole image of a 2D plane with the
middle pulled out into a cone is one of the original models of what
would
happen to the space of a 2D plane with a Black Hole in the center)
The more time you spend in realspace the more predictable your flight
time
will be, Hyperspace is much more unpredictable.) This is why, In
reality,
hyperjumps are more dangerous in-system. The orbits of the planets,
moons,
the motion of the star itself will create spikes , valleys and other
rapidly
changing spacial features. Hitting realspace while in hyperspace is not
adviseable. You will simoultaneously exist in both places and be
affected by
the currents in both dimentions, not to mention the hazards of having a
4D
hole ripped in your 3D hull.
These drives are used in Babylon 5, likely in Star Wars, but rember Star
Wars is decidely apathetic about the realities of relativity.

Finally Real "Jump" drives. These things actually FOLD space. Take the
paper
strip from before and touch the dots together, flatten the entire thing.
This takes IMMENSE amounts of energy, which makes it both more dangerous
and
safer than hyperdrive. Your ship never actually leaves 3D space so you
avoid
all the hazards of 3D to 4D interspacial travel, BUT if something does
go
wrong you may release enough energy to take out a small section of
reality.

These drives are used in Dune ("travelling without moving")

Full thrust's PSB indicates a highly efficient Hyper-Jump drive, not
quite
as powerfull as a Jump Drive but closes the gap in a fold before turning
at
right angles to reality, and crosses it.

Anyways back to
Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
 djwj wrote:
>> Second In-System: (1) in system if there is a system wide presence
>> there will be sensor bouys in the oort cloud, in extreme orbits from
>>the
>> sun,

>Let's hope your buoys are extremely cheap,
Yes

>extremely long-ranged
Not really, long range makes them expensive.

>and
>extremely durable :-/
Average durability, they would be too expensive otherwise

>You'll need huge amounts of them otherwise.
Give the man a prize, He's got it. These things are so cheap that the
orbit
is nearly saturated with them. They are small, easily replaceable, and
they
blend in with the debris in an oort cloud. A system ship could carry
hundreds of these things and replace lost ones quickly and easily.
Sensor
readings are coallated at a main base, individual sensors are located in
a
method similar to GPS, replacements are sent out to fill any gaps....

They are not for sophisticated detection, they are for "General!
something
has just entered the system at coords..."

>> (2) If a planet is worth
>> protecting, it's worth it's own dedicated space forces.

>Certainly. But is it able to support them? Value can be other than
>economic...

That's a decision for the government involved. Siege warfare makes a
return....

Laserlight wrote:
>I don't know about you, but I don't call my enemy's ship ahead of time
and
>say "Look here, old chap, I'm going to be shooting at you right after
my
>gunners finish tea, frightfully sorry and all that."  Speed-of-light
weapons
>mean you need to be dodging _before_ you know someone is shooting.

Not if your ranges are in Light-Seconds. A beam will be visible coming
if
you are at more than one lightsecond.
Although if the range is great enough a ship may have the time to avoid
an
entire salvo of batteries.

I'm still not sure that I agree with the ranges postulated, or if I
agree
with DSII taking 15 minute turns, modern tank warfare is over very
quickly,
unless both sides can secure sniping positions. I average 6 turns in a
DSII
game: that makes one conflict last about an hour and a half at 15min
turns.
Maybe someone knows some historical times to completeion (rember the
DSII
conflict, excepting artillery and aerospace, is limited to a 3 mile by 2
mile area) The other question is how much faster will advanced
technology
finish the battle, in the middle ages one battle took from sun-up to
sun-down (average 12 hours) in the world war II tank battles (excepting
Blitzkreig, which was a kind of sneak attack.) lasted up to 5 or even 6
hours. Simply making contact with the enemy was often enough to stop
them
for the remainder of the day. In desert storm the U.S. ran over armored
positions in minutes, never more than an hour when they actually fought
back, but they were fighting a demoralized and green (if not untrained)
force. The trend places advanced technology at minutes to sucess not
hours.
Kosovo cannot be gauged as of yet as ground forces haven't been sent in
(although this is exactly the kind of enemy, and enviroment that the
Integrated Armed Forces model was intended for).

Anyways back to FT:
As a play balance note if starships start "evading" then weapons need to
have a higher chance of hitting their targets, or everyone will spend
three
hours , Real time not Game Time, evading before someone gets the first
kill.
I like the GZG line of wargames because they are quick, 2 hours average,
3
max.