Re: Realistic movement thoughts

At 06:42 PM 1/23/97 +0100, you wrote:
>
>X amount of drive mass produces XY amount of thrust seems a perfectly
>simple and sensible way to have things. To then bring in extra
>complexity to force it to fit a mould it shouldn't be fitting into
>seems a really wierd way of going about things.
>
>> (which I don't like too much, since I'm a firm believer in fast small
and
>> slow big ships...)
>
>I'm a firm believer in designing a set of rules which make sense
>from a technological perspective. Then the fun is taking these rules
>to their logical conclusion and see what sort of tactics they require
>to use that technology effectively.
>
>If after doing all the maths, and checking the science, it works out
>small ships are inefficient, then they are. Fighters are the ultimate
>small ship, so they often work out useless as well (_especially_ if
>you're using reaction drives, in which case they often work out to
>have toally pathetic delta-vees). The fun is finding this out, and
>then finding ways to make them efficient (through new tactics).
>
>Of course, I can see lots of people disagreeing with me over this.
>
>-- 
>Be seeing you, 				      ARM not Intel.
>Sam.						Acorn not Microsoft.

With X thrust divided by Y mass = Z acceleration, that means the big
ships
will have to buy more engines per point of accelleration....which means
they
will cost more, and high speed dreadnoughts are prohibitivly expensive.
High speed also cuts down on the armarments the dreadnought can carry
anyway....so it all balances in the end...I love rules like that!

Donald Hosford
--
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com