Prev: Re: Vector Rules Next: Re: Vector Rules

Re: Vector Rules

From: Brian Burger <burger00@c...>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Vector Rules

On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, <Mark Andrew Siefert> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
Status: RO

> > Imre A. Szabo writes:
> > @:) Does the Space Shuttle use its main engines to rotate???
> > @:) 
> > @:) No!  It uses lots of small little manuevering thrusters to do
> > @:) There is no reason why a billion ton supper-battleship couldn't
> > @:) rotate, stop rotating, and then fire its main engines in one
> > 
> >   That's all true, provided said battleship had enough fuel to spin
> > itself up and slow itself down again.
>	I had a similar arguement with someone during a FTIII playtest
> session.  I had a dickens of a time trying to convince him that the
> the starship, the more mass it would need to dedicate to engines if it
> wanted to go at a ceratin speed.  Since this is the "thrust 8
> super-dreadnought" crowd, they found the idea of paying 40% of their
> for a thrust 8 ship as opposed to just 10% for a thrust 2 ship
> "Big ships don't need to go slow," I was told.  "That idea is so...
> British," said another.
> Later,
> Mark S.
Odds are, your playtesters are among those who confuse MASS and WEIGHT.
Sure, in micro-grav a SDN doesn't weigh anything, but it sure as hell
mass and the inertia that goes along with mass.

And as for thrust 8 SDNs, give me a break. I can think of far better
to spend your fleet points that on SDNs with destroyer thrust...

Its not a 'British' idea (love that phrase...!) its physics and points


Brian (

Prev: Re: Vector Rules Next: Re: Vector Rules