cm scale <weenie>rools</weenie>

On Tuesday, November 18, 1997 7:41 PM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio 
[SMTP:maxxon@swob.dna.fi] wrote:
> Check out:
>
> http://www.swob.dna.fi/mini/gzg/ft-cm-1.jpg
> http://www.swob.dna.fi/mini/gzg/ft-cm-2.jpg
>
(Whats this server using wet string, its 'chuckin' the data out at 59 
bytes/sec
so I can only see half the picture in 15 minutes)

I use cm scale due to space restrictions and have never really found it
a
problem. I don't agree it sucks. As the picci shows your table is a fair
size (is it a table tennis table?). I use micro-machines and FASA trek
ships
so they average about 5cm on a 1.33m x 2m board.

Its probably only an issue with ships bigger than 12cm, as
once you get within 12cm and max beam bashing takes place most ships
aren't around that long, except the big ones

There are various solutions to the rolling game issue of varying degrees
of
suckyness:

	o Restrict the playing bounds

	o Restrict the maximum speed

	o Use a virtual system (i know...)

	o Make the units smaller (cm)

	o Make the movement units smaller (cm) but keep the range units
	larger (in)

	o Use a bigger playing area

	o Use smaller models, starfleet elite etc.

	o Use cardboard counters that stack

	o Use a modular board so that you can move the next section of
the
	track without disturbing the main mass. Like the old SFB use of
	hex sheets.

	       o Modify the collision rules to make clumping a bad idea

sincerely
tim jones
--
Reality is for those who can't cope with Science Fiction.