Re: Reactions...

In message <199702241945.TAA23402@gate.flexnet.net>
jon@gzero.dungeon.com (Ground Zero Games) writes:
> 
> Just to make a couple of points in answer to specific issues raised in
some
> of the replies:
> Fighter move sequence: the comment was made that the MT sequence
allows
> ships to avoid/outmaneuver fighters, and comparison was made with
nautical
> carrier ops, where such an event is obviously ridiculous. However, the
> reasoning behind it was that these are SPACECRAFT, not aircraft -
without
> going deeply into the maths,the basic idea was that the fighters,
carrying
> little fuel/reaction mass/whatever (and wanting to save most of it for
> combat maneuvering anyway) would have to commit to an interception
vector
> at the start of their move, depending on where their tactical systems
> predict the target ship is most likely to end up; if the target in
turn has
> anticipated this and taken evasive action, the fighters may find
themselves
> too far away to attack this turn; this (to me, anyway) is all part of
the
> guess/bluff/doublebluff, which is a major fun element of the game. 

[additional details, and neat idea, snipped]

I think that this sort of information is an important part of the rule 
texts, if you want to allow optional rules.  By explaining the reality 
the rule is trying to model, you help decide whether or not the rule 
needs changing for a different game universe.

I can, for instance, think of possible universes where this rule would 
not be appropriate, as the fighters use some sort of propulsion system 
which doesn't expend reaction mass.  And, in some extreme cases, all 
ships might be as agile as fighters.  Would that be QX?

Actually, if I wanted to use Bergenholms, I'd be looking at the systems 
in GURPS Lensman, which I believe have been reprinted in one of the two 
Compendiums.

-- 
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..