Prev: [FT] Sensors (repost) Next: Re: [FT] Unbelievably BIG ship

[kinda-FT] Getting Big (was: RE: [FT] SMLs, Type 3 & Tactics)

From: "By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends" <KOCHTE@s...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:50:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [kinda-FT] Getting Big (was: RE: [FT] SMLs, Type 3 & Tactics)

Rather than respond to a bunch of individual posts, I opted to lump 'em
together.  :)  (oh, God, being efficient on a monday - somebody shoot

>From: "John M. Atkinson" <>
> wrote:
>> 245,875 mass, Average Hull, FTL, Thrust 4, 32 PDA, 4 ADFC, 6 Fire
>> Crew Units.
>Why are we discussing a million-point starship?  What the F*** genre
>you playing?  Dave Webber's Mutineer's Moon/Armageddon Inheritance
>series?  In which case, what you do is turn on your FTL drives in a
>gravity well, cause a supernova, and blow up his entire fleet, IIRC.

Um, in order:

Why not? We've discussed a number of equally unseeming aspects of the
here. Not only FT, but DSII and SGII (though admittedly not as often).

Does it matter what genre he's playing in? I mean, really? Maybe he just
it up (it *is* allowed ;)  (a later posting indicates otherwise, but I
making any assumptions as to a specific universe he was playing in; he
just using the rules to do an engagement - albeit a big-ass one!)

The rest I can't comment on; I haven't read Webber's series' noted up
(not sure if this is a good or bad thing, though). Only the Starfire

>From: "John M. Atkinson" <>
>John Crimmins wrote:
>> Why are we discussing a million point starship?  Because someone
gamed with
>> it.	That is what we do on this list, right?  Discuss games?  If you
>> why one would play with such a ship, all I can ask in response is:
Why not?
>>  It's no more absurd than the Death Star, is it?  Just think of it as
>> Ogre in space.
>In order:
>That's what I asked.
>Not someone who's quite right in the head

John, I hope you're being sarcastic here, 'cause it sure didn't come
across that way the first few times I read through this.

>Well, yes.
>Because no opponent in his right mind would agree to a multi-million
>point game, 

Why not? Obviously at least one person did. And why not play this kind
game once in a while? Push the limits of the game system, see what
(and speaking of pushing the of limits of game systems, where's Mikko

>because no one with a normal income has enough miniatures to
>put out a million points of normal ships, 

No one said they *had* to use miniatures...

>because the time spent marking
>off damage would a significant fraction of my lifetime, because it
>take a week to plot the movement of a million points worth of normal

If you've played any appreciable amount of SFB (eg, years worth), then
of this should even faze you.  ;-)

>and because you'd need a gymnasium to game in.  

That's a good thought...though you could easily change your scale to
something more accomodating! And as the forces close, adjust the scale
to fit accordingly. Voila', problem solved.

(hmmm...a friend of mine just bought a house...has a *big*, open
right now...hey, Noam, let's lean on Karl about hosting a Lareg Game
at his place! :)

>I don't use the damn Death Star either.

Why not? Why not use the Death Star? Why limit yourself to 100 pt
(for any humor-impaired: sarcasm mode high here :)

>And Ogres are pretty silly too--and die nicely in DSII.

I dunno, I like Ogres. Don't like 'em much in DSII, but in their own
they work fine.

>> As for the genre....  It's Science FICTION, John.  Infinite
>> That's why I like it so much.  Broaden your mind, man!  Expand your
>> horizons!  You'll have much more fun that way.
>There is SCIENCE Fiction, and *mumblequickly*science*mumble* FICTION. 
>This definitely is latter.

It totally depends on your scale of things, and what assumptions and
constraints you are making and/or imposing on your universe.

Although Star Trek is neither. They're science fantasy (emphasis on
(and if any rabid ST fans out there want to argue the point, speak to me
line and I'll tell you a story of a ST higher-up I saw at a con once who
out and denounced any importance to science in ST; I lost a lot of
respect for
ST after hearing his presentation)

>I'm not saying you can't, 

Your initial post came across in a *very* condescending manner, which
lead one to believe you were saying they couldn't.

>it is afterall a free country and you're
>welcome to whatever floats your boat.	But don't get me started on a
>discussion of tactics and then spring this on me.  

I'll admit to being pretty choked when I first read Stephen's post, esp
he verified the size of it all. But it led to some interesting thoughts
possibilties, and as we saw from Oerjan's(? (I forgot, you did do that
analysis, right Oerjan? or was it Brendan? Hells bells, I can't
brain...too...full...<gurk!>)) analysis, 3 Class-16 batts vs a like-mass
Class-6 batts is woefully lopsided (though *looking* at a Class-16 batt
be pretty sobering!). I hadn't sat down to calculate the upper end of
diminishing return law as applied to beam batts yet.

>I'd be in a less
>dumbfounded frame of mind if the subject head was "REALLY, REALLY BIG
>SHIPS" and we started out with the stats of this spacegoing planet.

John, m'boy, you need to be more adaptable, flexible, to the
FT-discussion enviroment!  :)

>Most of the games that I play are small games (maybe 18 ships or so per
>but every now and then I want to (and can find someone) try out
something BIG
>(like the mega gun carrying ship, or a super carrier) and game that,

18 ships per side is a small game to you guys?? Wow...I'm in the group
where <5-7 ships per side is a small game; 18 is a fairly substantial
(largest game I've been in has been 31:19 ships, and that was an email

Ah, well, my $0.02 worth for the time being.  :-}   (man, in the time it
for me to just type this - an hour - I've been flooded with GZG mails!
like a swarm of FSE-launched SMLs...  ;-)


Prev: [FT] Sensors (repost) Next: Re: [FT] Unbelievably BIG ship