Zombie Messages

Actually, I am not sure why this came up now.  I had originally sent
that
message WEEKS ago.  There must have been something weird about the
SENDMAIL
account on the machine this list is hosted on and it just got flushed
from
the cache.

Anyway, after I sent that message I realized that the real solution was
not
just vector adding but also much better sensor rules.  Right now all
ships
in the game are visible, 100%.	Adding sensor and target solution rules
will
balance this out.  Also, missiles should be spoofable just as they are
in
real life.

--Peter

----- Original Message -----
> <sigh> This only about the fifth time I've seen this one suggestion
> come up in this thread, and it is just as disastrous for game balance
> now as it was on the previous occasions. The only difference here is
> that you allow two winning design strategies rather than only one:
> eggshell carriers and eggshell missile boats, rather than eggshell
> missile boats exclusively.
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:16 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
	by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA30037;
	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:02:02 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB3K1cv57443;
	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:01:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 3 Dec
2000 12:01:37 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB3K1aM57422
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:01:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:BS7zrbuFXEn6HgdnS8u4D4P4/vd4qDr3@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB3K1ZP57417
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:01:35
-0800 (PST)
Received: from hotmail.com (oe16.pav0.hotmail.com [64.4.32.96])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB3K1Yf98928
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:01:34 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from peter_mancini@msn.com)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC;
	 Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:01:29 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [63.38.35.122]
From: "Peter Mancini" <peter_mancini@msn.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References: <3.0.6.32.20001202191446.007cdaf0@netgen.it>
Subject: Re:
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:01:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID: <OE16eNuXK5AjfUKWTa900004c4c@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2000 20:01:29.0680 (UTC)
FILETIME=[D36F3500:01C05D63]
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:   
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000069e

So did Clash of Arms in their newsletter Art of War.  I have the extra
counters but I do not have the games required and I think they are out
of
print.

--Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: Enzo De Ianni <edi@netgen.it>
To: <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 1:14 PM

> Hello
>
> >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 14:25:51 +1100
> >From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>
> >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Crossover after action report
> >
> >G'day guys,
> >
> >I wouldn't skip just on other people's say so I enjoyed it purely for
the
> >scene where the Gungans (or however you spell it) fight the Droids...
> >wonderful to see a Napoleonic army facing an ancient one...
wargamer's
> dream ;)
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Beth
>
> Can be done!! GMT offered counters for the Alexandrian army to play in
> their Waterloo game... based on some historian reflections about how
little
> black powder had really changed war, up to that time.
>
> Well... sorry! :)
>
> Bye
> Enzo De Ianni
>
>
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:16 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
	by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA31269;
	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:09:09 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB3K8mI57537;
	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 3 Dec
2000 12:08:47 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB3K8kD57515
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:08:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:vaLi0zTZYyjqWmxwvTpCrNjltBpkCf9S@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB3K8iP57509
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:08:44
-0800 (PST)
Received: from tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts5.bellnexxia.net
[209.226.175.25])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB3K8hf00243
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:08:43 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from rlbell@sympatico.ca)
Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.230.82.11]) by
tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net
	  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
	  id
<20001203200837.GCXC22808.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca>
	  for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:08:37 -0500
Message-ID: <3A2AA862.964FBADB@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 15:09:06 -0500
From: Richard Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-SYMPA  (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr-CA
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [FT] Modular warships
References: <200012031102.MAA04057@d1o902.telia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:   
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000069f

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Richard Bell write;
>
> >> [Bri] Makes sense, but you assume you start the design with
> >> large weapons first. What if you start with a design of 18 class-1s
> >>and want replace them with a all-arc Class-4 beam?
> >
> >This is disallowed by most engineering conventions
>
> You have, or at least *can* have, just the same problem when going in
> the other direction (ie. from large to small weapons).
>
> Imagine that you want to replace the spinal gun of a Renegade Legion:
> Leviathan-style battleship. In Full Thrust this is a big K-gun; I'd
> rate it as a K5 or larger. The hull of the ship is literally built
> around this weapon; the only part of the weapon which reaches the
> surface of the hull is the muzzle - and that's no bigger than a single
> B1.

The largest ship described in any of the FT fleet books only has a mass
that is about 300 times the mass of a fighter.	The smallest class of
ship
described in Leviathan (a destroyer) is over a thousand times larger
than
a fighter.  If we accept the quas-official backgound of one mass unit is
100 tonnes, the class A spinal mount from Leviathan has the same mass as
a
K-800.	BTW the mass of fighters in the two game systems are
approximately
the same for light fighters, but heavy fighters in Leviathan can be up
to
a little over two full FT mass units.  The Leviathan design rules are
also
hopelessly broken as the cost effectiveness of 101,000 energy point
battleships will sweep the quadrant in an equal money battle.

>
>
> If you replace the rest of the spinal gun with B1s, you need to turn
> your ship inside-out in order for them to fire (unless you *want* them
> to blast holes in your own hull, of course!). I respectfully submit
> that turning a ship inside-out is a bigger change of "socket paradigm"
> than the AVRO Arrow engine one.

If the spinal mount is sleeved for easy maintenance (undo the power,
control and hold-down couplings and slide out the entire assembly for
repairs and easy access[this makes a lot of sense for repairs in
zero-g]),
and beam weapons use either sub X-ray lasers or charged particle beams,
than the beam weapons line the empty tube facing towards the axis and
the
focussing elements redirect the beam along the tube's long axis.  The
resultant field of fire is very limited, but does not require that the
ship be turned inside out.  Hence my suggestion that the ganged
class-1's
or 2's are limited to the arc of the original larger weapon.

For unit design rules, there is an entire spectrum of detail.  At the
high
end is GDW's "Fire, Fusion, and Steel" where systems have mass, volume,
shape, and power requirements, and the shape of a starship affects it
surface area, and more surface means more area for weapon mounts, and
more
material needed for a given hull strength.  Cost is a secondary
consideration to making it all fit.  At the low end of detail are the
original Warhammer 40K vehicle rules, where the only consideration is
cost.  Full Thrust is below the middle, which is why there is a problem
with adding fiddly details like modules and sockets.  It is the kind of
detail that everybody wants in a campaign setting, but the rules were
not
strongly conceived for campaigning.