Re: Fw: Bogey Markers

On Mon, 5 May 1997 23:23:17 +0100, you wrote:

>>We (any many SF games) use a bastardised version of the USN ship
>>classification system. BB Battleship; DN Dreadnought; BC

>I think the above would give too much detail for a 'bogey' marker.
>Hardly worth having a bogey marker if you know it is an 'Unknown CLG or
BDN
>(or is that DNB!!?)

CLG is a light cruiser with missiles and a DNB would be a
battledreadnought (our system not the USN one). No idea what a BDN is.
Could always use just a two letter code. The advantage of the full
system is that you just start at the first letter and keep adding them
until you have enough detail... :-) Besides, we use it as we just got
used to the real one playing Command at Sea. Anyway now you know why
all those Nimitzes  have "CVA" painted on them.

>How about S, M and L. If Jon T dumps the hull size split in FTIII you
won't
>need to stick to terms of Escort, Cruiser and Capital,
>Use whatever ID system you like, it will be as good as any, there are
no
>standards out there.

I'm not a fan of hull size categories. Always too easy to abuse them,
and then there is the question of why anyone would build a ship that
wasn't the biggest allowable in its category.

What sublight drive system are full thrust ships supposed to use? My
personal take is that there is no real reason for the larger ships to
have poorer acceleration. Of course, if they are ion drives you can
make up whatever reason you like for the speed differential.

Sandy Goh (sandy@artica.demon.co.uk)