Re: Fw: Weapons for Newtonian based FTIII

Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:

@:) >	Hey, it's OK by me as long as I can mount it on my carrier.
@:) 
@:) Can you really spare 30 Mass? Go ahead...

  On a supership you could, pretty easily.  And I think spending 30
mass might be worth it for a device that provides more or less
complete AF/AM protection for your ship and any ship within 6 (or 3?)
inches.

@:) Then I would ask the GM why is he trying ban my tactics and after
@:) receiving no logical explanation I would leave play disgusted by
@:) the non-impartial judging.

  Sure.  It's probably not a good idea to play with people whose ideas
on how the universe works differ from yours anyway.  Eventually
there's going to be some kind of big unresolvable argument, be it this
one or some other.

@:) > ... sand field.
@:) 
@:) I was talking about *your* version, which did nothing to anything
@:) moving less than 36". Incidentally, this includes all vanilla
@:) missiles.

  True, but it doesn't include any missiles, FT variety or otherwise,
that are moving at some incredible speed, say, to fast to reasonably
be intercepted by fighters or ships.  The 1000"/turn rock, for
example.

@:) > Bases are not left undefended.
@:)  
@:) I'd rather not re-iterate yet again. See my last post about the
@:) subject.

  I guess this isn't quite clear to me.  You want to fight around the
base, within range of tha base's weapons, ie 54".  But the problem
you're worried about is essentially that ships will launch from
(effectively) outside that distance and attack the base while
remaining immune to any response from the base.  The problem you were
worried about in a previous post, the one that led to this one, is
that an attacker can mount an attack which cannot be deflected in any
way.  The 1000"/turn rock cannot be slowed, turned, stopped or
destroyed AND since its entire attack is carried out in one movement
turn, there's nothing anyone can even try to do about it.  That's the
problem I was looking at.  As for ships firing missiles at bases from
54", that's a problem too but not one I happen to be worried about.

@:) A counter-example: Your defending fleet is stationed at the
@:) base. Or where-ever. I don't care as long as I don't have to FTL
@:) in right in your lap. I FTL in
@:) 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" away. You detect
@:) me and move in on an intercepting course. I accelerate all the
@:) way, headed for your base.
@:) 
@:) The News Bit: You can't ever match my velocity. You'll get one
@:) brief attack pass at best. Due to FT turn structure, it's likely
@:) you never get to shoot even if our courses intersect. You have to
@:) be within weapons range at the end of the turn... silly,
@:) yes. Rules, yes.

  Hmm... yes, that is a tricky problem.  I guess this would be a good
time for me to throw a big pile of sand in your way.  But then I'm not
a paid military strategist or anything.

@:) > The fleet vs base scenario is just not plausible, as scenarios
@:) > go.
@:) 
@:) But it's fun. Or, it would be fun if these cowardly weasel attacks
@:) didn't short circuit it.
@:) 
@:) If you introduce weapons with potentially infinite range to the
@:) game, you should think of the consequences.

  OK, once more I think we need to consider that there are two
different problems being considered here.  Attacking without ever
getting in weapons range of the defender is a thorny issue, and one
that I don't have an answer for.  Attacking with weapons that exploit
the turn-based nature of the game is a seperate issue and can, to an
extent, be countered with things like sand clouds that affect areas
and cause damage during the movement phase.

  As for your argument that a volume is much bigger than an area,
you're right, but if it stops .9c missiles being launched from the
other side of the galaxy and hitting my station on the same turn, I'll
learn to live with it.

@:) >	Anyway, all that said, I do think sand should disperse some
@:) > time after launch - maybe three turns, maybe more.
@:) 
@:) Guess who suggested that yesterday? Want me to quote myself?

  I never said you didn't say it.  I just said I agree with it.
That's probably bad form on the net!

-joachim