RE: [GZG] Stuart Murray's Games at GZG ECC IX

[Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx>]

Beth wrote:

[...]
>  "You can get the pods talking to each other, and deciding that nothing
> much has happened recently as most of our readings have been the same,
> so lets the rest of us go to sleep and save batteries, with one waking
> us up if something starts happening," says Martinez.
[...]
> ... given advances in batteries and distributed sensor nets
> using this node-like behaviour, why can't minefields of the future use
> them to?

They can and they do - you've pretty much described the PSB behind the 
StarFire 3rd Edition minefield rules from way back when; and I've seen 
several other SF backgrounds featuring this type of networked minefields too.

Unfortunately networking doesn't change the main problem with space 
minefields at all: unless you can emplace them in a position the enemy 
*has* to pass by in order to get somewhere he wants to go and you don't 
want him to go (eg. a StarFire-style warp point), or you can lure him to 
run into your minefields (eg. the way Honor Harrington did in "The Short 
Victorious War"), the odds that the enemy will get close enough to the 
mines to be affected by them (either attacked by them or forced to revise 
his movements to avoid them) are very low.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l