Prev: Re: Mines Next: Re: Mines (small rant)

Re: Mines (small rant)

From: "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@j...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:09:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Mines (small rant)


Schoon: 
<smaller>[snipped mine stuff]

....

I kind of like the idea of beefing up a mines a bit, but before we go
hog wild with this we should look at what we want mines to really do.

<rant>
I _hate_ mines as a space combat concept. I understand we're abstracting
3-D
down to 2, but mines blow that abstraction away and assume we're playing
2D
from the get go. Might as well play Wet Thrust. Mines in open space are
nonsensical unless you plant them right infront of a ship, in which case
you
should be playing with SMLs. The only other place they might be passable
is
in a concentrated field around a fixed object, but the farther out you
go
outward in inches, the worse the abstraction gets - pi*r^2 vs.
4/3*pi*r^3 is
coverage of a circle vs coverage of a sphere. Unless you pay that much
more
for increasing radius of coverage, you're taking advantage of the
abstraction. That bugs the carbon out of me.
</rant>

Noam

Prev: Re: Mines Next: Re: Mines (small rant)