Re: Modeling Honor Harrington Ships.

> 
>		      Alan E and
>		      Carmel J Brain To:  gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> 
> 
> bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:
> 
> 
> >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.
> 

Very true.

> 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.
> 
><snip>
 
> 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.
> 
> 
> --

Well I wasn't going to get into this, but I'll go ahead and give you
what
I have for design criteria.

1. 3-d movement
2. Accurate modeling of Newtonian physical movement
3. Accurate distance scale

Problems these criteria create:

Physically representing 3 dimensions on a tabletop

Projecting a cone for both open aspects of the wedges.	(Cone projection
is not an easy bit of math)

A ship is around a km long (or so), but the wedge is much larger,
usually
around 300 times the size of the actual ship.  And engagement ranges are
in the millions of km.	This gives you an incredible scale problem. 
Even
if you (and he)  accept ships hundreds (perhaps thousands) of times
larger
than they should be, they are still going to be tiny compared to the
ranges.

Time scale.  When egagement times are measured in hours, you have to
have
some time compression in the game, but that very time compression could
work against you when you start working out the movement.

Speaking of movement, you also have the acceleration/deceleration
calculations, which while easy enough, do not make for a necessarily
easy
game.

Anyone that's done any game design can tell you these are not trivial
problems.

JMO, but I did not consider this to be a workable game for the table
top.
The calculations involved could not be easily handled without computer
simulation.  David even told me that he didn't see how someone could
accurately model 3-D Newtonian physics in such a way that it made a good
game.

Now then, I'm not telling you this to discourage you.  I just figure the
more intelligence you get on the opponent before you start, the better.
If you can get the license I'll most likely be lining up for the mini's
myself.

As an aside, after talking with many designers, and doing some studying,
I've decided that one of the designers I talked with extensively was
right.	Good books do not generally make good games, and good games do
not
generally make good books.  I love the HH series, and I've read them all
at least twice (except Ashes of Victory, which I've only read once), but
I
don't know that it would necessarily make a good game.

All this is of course JMO, and it's probably worth what you paid for it.

Bill
bbrush2@unl.edu  (temporarily using a different account for the list
rather than gumming it up with blank posts, bad quoting, and HTML)