Prev: Re: Vector Rules Next: Re: Internet Message

Re: Vector Rules

From: agoodall@s... (Allan Goodall)
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 03:24:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Vector Rules

On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:24:22 -0400 (EDT), Alexander Williams
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Stuart Ford wrote:
Status: RO

>How much the peas in the pod rattle around is a legitimate concern, but
>/just/ as important when considering linear axial thrust.

Agree with the inertia comments. I'm going to throw something else in
the mix: structural integrity. Making a starship that can handle high
amounts of  linear acceleration is a given. However, in order to
handle high amounts of rotational acceleration would require extra
stressing. It's not just a matter of bigger engines taking up more
mass. The internal structure would have to be reinforced to handle the
acceleration. This adds mass. How much mass? Don't know, how massive
is durasteel, plaststeel, metallic hydrogen reinforcing rods, etc?
But, it would be more mass than if you designed the ship for only a
small amout of angular acceleration. 

How does this affect the game? Probably not at all; this is a fast
paced wargame, not an engineering lesson. However, if you're thinking
of homegrown rules to handle angular acceleration, you may want to
think about giving fast turning ships a slight penalty in mass to
handle this effect.

On a tangential note, I'd like to be able to make brittle ships by
getting a bonus for taking less than the calculated hull boxes and
make tougher ships by buying extra hull boxes.

Allan Goodall  -

"The secret rules of engagement are hard to endorse,
 when the appearance of conflict meets the appearance of force"
		       - The Tragically Hip

Prev: Re: Vector Rules Next: Re: Internet Message