Re: Modeling Honor Harrington Ships.

bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:

>I have talked to Mr Weber (hereafter referred to as David),
>about a mini's game based on the HH universe, and I have to 
>say he was pretty particular about what such a game would have 
>to involve.  I won't go into specifics about it, but suffice 
>to say no game currently out could even come close to the
>detail he considered necessary.  I don't know how receptive he 
>would be to just licensing the miniatures concept he would 
>be.  My gut tells me he would not want to do it without an 
>attached game to drive sales.

>If you can get the license for the ships, then I would say 
>there would be an overwhelming demand for them, but I'm not 
>sure that, that would be sufficient ammunition to convince him 
>to do it

The first thing to do is to ask him if a gameless set of miniatures is
acceptable.
If it is, there's no problem.

Secondly, if it isn't, then we have to ask what type of system would he
require?
3-D or not 3-D, that is the question. We don't want something of
SFB-style complexity (though he might). If we go 3-D, then we have the
problem of how do we make the models "fly" at the right Z-co-ordinate.
Not an insuperable problem, but not trivial either. Measuring vertical
angles is also a pain, and there'll be a lot of that (sidewall or
topwall? Or down the throat?). It also limits the Z to no more than a 2
metre length, just by the physical distance people can slide the models
up and down. But this may still be the way to go, as the whole
HH fleet naval tactics are based on walls rather than lines.

Remember also that if we're using models, the system should be
appropriate for single-ship and small fleet actions, not neccessarily
battles involving hundreds of ships of the wall on each side: this would
require many thousands of dollars worth of minis to play, and a NASA
Vehicle Assembly Building in 3D, or a ballroom in 2D. For this scale of
action, a computer system is essential, or at worst, a boardgame.

Getting back to miniatures...

If we don't go for 3-D, then there should only be a commensurate amount
of detail in the simulation - no point in spending great amounts of time
and pages modelling events with a 0.5% significance in excruciating
detail when we've made a massive simplification equal to a 40%
significance at the start.
But he may not see it that way, of course.

One system that comes to mind as a 2-D simulation is to use vector Full
Thrust as the base, but with ships having screens/armour/whatever on one
side (port or starboard) and weaponry on the other. In other words,
collapse the 3 dimensions into 2, but with the top/bottom mapped to
left, the sides to right. A roll to turn the sidewalls away from the
enemy becomes not a 90 degree axial roll but a 180 degree one. The
tactic of having an enemy bracketed by ships both to the side and above
translates as to the left and to the right.

No, it's not a perfect model: but it gives a similar feel to the battle,
with comparable tactical problems.

-- 
	      http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|	    xxxxx	Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |	xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.edu.au o O*OO^^^^OO*O o oo     oo oo	 oo  
		       By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale