[FT] Unofficial Official Lists?
From: John Leary <john_t_leary@y...>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:19:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [FT] Unofficial Official Lists?
> > > > I'm looking for fairly comprehensive, and
> fairly
> > > navigatable and printable (the FT Ship Registry
> wasn't) copies of
> > > quasi official fleet listings for the following
> fleets. - Islamic
> > > Federation, Oceanic Union,
> > > > UNSC.
...
> In round numbers, using the OU as "1 fleet", the
> powers should have
> roughly:
> OU, FCT, IC: 1
> PAU: 1.1
> IF: 2
> NSL: 5
> FSE: 6
> ESU: 8.5
> NAC: lots...around 25.
Greetings,
Having found the original message for the
fleet sizes, I am now convinced that I must
really do something about the clutter on the
old hard drive.
Original message follows:
Results of the 'Number of Ships Survey'
Legend:
Low Sub # = Lowest number of ships submitted.
Low Avg # = Average of the low submissions.
Comb # = Combination of the low and high averges.
High Avg # = Average of the high submissions.
High Sub # = Highest number of ships submitted.
Sys Def # = Combined avg number for SDB
Cargo # = Combined avg number for Cargo ships.
Chart:
Size Low Low Comb High High Sys Cargo
of Sub Avg Avg Avg Sub Def Ships
Power # # # # # # #
Major 400 887 1181 1475 2000 310 2000
2nd 200 488 519 550 1200 240 1050
3rd 100 187 318 450 900 180 325
4th 40 72 127 182 300 125 250
5th 0 13 48 83 150 62 160
The range between the low an high averages gives
quite a bit of room for people to do what they desire.
I can only hope the chart will be of some value to
those who are still designing fleets.
Comments.
Bye for now,
John L.
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:23 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 QAA00760;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:27:05 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB6MP1462802;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 14:25:00 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB6MOxv62777
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:24:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:M0/HjqJSLnRpOrcq18HW7LfoBVYMmE8h@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB6MOwP62772
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:24:58
-0800 (PST)
Received: from saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu
[131.230.252.26])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB6MOvf94759
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:24:57 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from jdarnold@siu.edu)
Received: from saluki-mail.siu.edu (saluki-mail.siu.edu
[131.230.252.17])
by saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA45592;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:22:17 -0600
Received: from deathstar (port12.aixdialin.siu.edu [131.230.253.12])
by saluki-mail.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA13234;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:22:15 -0600
From: "Jay Arnold" <jdarnold@siu.edu>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: Mobile infantry in SG2
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:23:05 -0600
Message-ID: <NEBBKHOOCLECLODFJBHIMEFOCBAA.jdarnold@siu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: <001801c05f64$01b23b40$c16d8490@homeii.vic.bigpond.net.au>
Importance: Normal
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: 39d245de0000079a
This of course begs the question why should a vehicle have half the
actions
it had previously just because some crunchies get out/off? By the same
token
why should a squad be limited in its actions because some tread heads
want
to tag along? I think a sensible alternitive is to treat an APC/IFV/CFV
and
the squad/section it carries as seperate entities from the get go. For
the
sake of simplicity, the squad's action is taken at the same time as the
IFV.
This makes the most sense to me not only from a game play standpoint,
but
also modeled on current doctrine. I wasn't an 11M (Mechanised
Infantryman)
in the Army (37F actually, Psyop Specialist), but IIRC the TC of a M-2/3
Bradley is not the squad/section leader, and the squad/section leader is
not
the TC. This is different for Platoon Leaders and Company Commanders,
but
they don't have any grunts with them, IIRC (again).
Any thoughts?
Jay
Why anyone would want to drive around, blind, in a big, noisy bullet
magnet
like an APC/IFV is beyond me. Give me my MC-1C or at worst a T-10B
anyday!
(If you have to ask... :P)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Owen Glover
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 3:08 AM
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: RE: Mobile infantry in SG2
Hi Andy,
The sample lists in the back of the rules actually give two options! I
think
it all depends on how your doctrine is played out.
For truly Mechanised Infantry, the APC should be part of the squad and
you
probably need a couple of house rules to work this effectively. We use a
modified Detachment Rule that gives the Det an autoamtic one Action
regardless of the distance from parent body; BUT detachments can only be
formed if for a "reasonable" tactical reason. The parent body can
transfer
one of its two Actions to the Detachment; this way both entities have at
least one action.(We play the game and discuss ANY sticking points
rationally and logically. If it gets to an ARGUMENT or heated discussion
then it isn't reasonable and don't happen!)
If the APC is simply a battle taxi then once the Infantry have
dismounted
then it is a separate unit etc.
That's our take on it.
Back to you.
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> [mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Andy Cowell
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 December 2000 6:40 AM
> To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: Mobile infantry in SG2
>
>
>
> I couldn't find it the other night while we were playing-- how do you
> handle dismounted mobile infantry in SG2? I treated the vehicle as a
> detached unit, which seemed to work okay, but I wondered what most
> people did, or if the rules covered it and I just missed it in the
> heat of battle?
>
From - Wed Dec 13 16:37:59 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 QAA03623;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:40:22 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB6McOu63098;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:38:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 14:38:23 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB6McM963077
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:udLFn4C8K8+rGjfV8Wj0qieNOTsc9GsR@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB6McKP63072
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:38:20
-0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB6McJf99031
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:38:19 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Thomas.Granvold@eng.sun.com)
Received: from zoso.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.14.1])
by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06606
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:38:18 -0800
(PST)
Received: from futhark (futhark [129.144.14.100])
by zoso.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with SMTP id
OAA01514
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:38:17 -0800
(PST)
Message-Id: <200012062238.OAA01514@zoso.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:38:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Granvold <Thomas.Granvold@eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-MD5: qj27iFYrevCDU2uryD3XnA==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.3.4 SunOS 5.7 sun4u sparc
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status: O
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000079b
Aaron Teske <ateske@HICom.net> asked:
> Come to think of it, the one game that was discussed a while back,
where
> you design your race... can't seem to find any of the messages, thoguh
I'd
> thought I'd saved at least one (though that's out of 4.6M of saved
FTML
> messages over the last few years...).
That was Starship! by Flagship Games. Someone else gave their
email address, their web site is: http://www.flagshipgames.com/
Enjoy,
Tom Granvold <thomas.granvold@eng.sun.com>
From - Wed Dec 13 16:37:59 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 QAA03785;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:41:23 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB6Mdr163214;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:39:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 14:39:52 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB6MdpA63193
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:39:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:l93VKe4Qct0zNM5fEVGpf1ToZ3vuxWO5@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB6MdoP63188
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:39:50
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.quixnet.net (psmtp3.array3.laserlink.net
[63.65.123.53] (may be forged))
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB6Mdnf99378
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:39:49 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET)
Received: from hqmknt04enu ([63.88.48.82])
by smtp3.quixnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA08635
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:39:44 -0500
(EST)
Message-ID: <001301c05fd5$7e9fd290$1e0aa8c0@hqmknt04enu>
From: "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References: <20001206221945.24597.qmail@web4602.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [FT] Unofficial Official Lists?
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:40:11 -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 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
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: 39d245de0000079c
> > In round numbers, using the OU as "1 fleet", the
> > powers should have
> > roughly:
> > OU, FCT, IC: 1
> > PAU: 1.1
> > IF: 2
> > NSL: 5
> > FSE: 6
> > ESU: 8.5
> > NAC: lots...around 25.
>
> Greetings,
> Having found the original message for the
> fleet sizes, I am now convinced that I must
> really do something about the clutter on the
> old hard drive.
>
> Original message follows:
>
> Results of the 'Number of Ships Survey'
>
> Legend:
> Low Sub # = Lowest number of ships submitted.
> Low Avg # = Average of the low submissions.
> Comb # = Combination of the low and high averges.
> High Avg # = Average of the high submissions.
> High Sub # = Highest number of ships submitted.
> Sys Def # = Combined avg number for SDB
> Cargo # = Combined avg number for Cargo ships.
>
> Chart:
> Size Low Low Comb High High Sys Cargo
> of Sub Avg Avg Avg Sub Def Ships
> Power # # # # # # #
> Major 400 887 1181 1475 2000 310 2000
> 2nd 200 488 519 550 1200 240 1050
> 3rd 100 187 318 450 900 180 325
> 4th 40 72 127 182 300 125 250
> 5th 0 13 48 83 150 62 160
Mine was based on an extrapolation (and hand-waving) of the current
aggregate economies, but this is useful as well. Of course, you could
just
say that the OU is a 4th Rate and the NAC is a Major, but I don't think
I'd
want to. Particularly since those OU commandoes show up in the most
inconvenient places.
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:00 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 QAA03986;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:42:54 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB6Mf8Z63260;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:41:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 14:41:07 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB6Mf6t63238
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:41:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Egr4Oz7weuNZFj3Bt9QjR2vc6kPFIx5i@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB6Mf5P63233
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:41:05
-0800 (PST)
Received: from strait.hba.marine.csiro.au (strait.hba.marine.csiro.au
[140.79.17.2])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB6Mf2f99762
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:41:03 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au)
Received: from fulton.hba.marine.csiro.au (fulton [140.79.21.56])
by strait.hba.marine.csiro.au (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
eB6MeX126526
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:40:33 +1100
(EDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001207092934.00a7ba20@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
X-Sender: fulton@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:40:49 +1100
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>
Subject: Re: [FT] Salvo Missile (and Fighter) Range
In-Reply-To: <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9EA9AD09@spacemsg3.jhuapl.ed
u>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: 39d245de0000079d
G'day guys,
Noam said:
>>The proof is in the fighting, though.
>>Too bad we're half a world away. (Though this might
>>also lend itself well to (at least playtest) by PBeM).
I'd love to obige but I'm a tad snowed under and I really don't want to
ruin Laserlight financially when he decideds to put a contract out on me
for not doing his first ;)
Laserlight proves my point:
>Hey! I have two prior claims on Beth's
>playtest time. Wait till she gets
>done with CanAm and "Are single-arc
>weapons better than triple-arc".
Well CanAm should be happening this weekend - I tore up my timetable of
chapter completion yesterday so what hurt can a few hours spent flying
spaceships do? ;)
As for the other one, it's going to have to wait a bit longer
unfortunately, ones I can do on the spot I can slip in at the moment,
ones
that eat up time at work I can't unfortunately :(
>That would be much harder to track,
>however, in the shower this morning I
>thought of a simpler way of determining
> Attack velocity.
Another person who thinks well while wet ;)
This idea doesn't sound half bad Noam, I think it'd be workable for even
for large launches.
Now onto the fighters:
>Yes.This is one of those things that
>would need to be tweaked by playtest.
>Fighters would also likely have a harder
> time engaging in cinematic than in
>vector - maybe adding CEF would balance that.
Adding CEF to what?
>One possible solution is to allow
>"passing attacks" if the AV is higher than
>the max required for engagement.
>Reduce the number of dice in the attack by
>1 for each 6" or part thereof above the max AV.
Mmm I'd have to think about it some more, but that could be a goer.
>Another Idea is that if a figher reaches
>a target with its normal move, but
>the AV is still too high, it could apply
>it's reaction move to "break to
>engage"...
While I like this idea, I think I'd keep both options ("passing attacks"
and "breaking to engage") as you'll chew up CEF pretty fast otherwise
(then
again that may just be me as I don't tend to use up CEF via secondary
moves
very often).
Have fun
Beth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
HOBART
TASMANIA 7001
AUSTRALIA
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax 03 6232 5053 International +61 3 6232 5053
email: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:00 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 QAA07232;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:59:08 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB6MvVO63624;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 14:57:26 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB6MvPg63600
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:57:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:f0krAtj06MljY+alAY4iHfdTr/JH7DLY@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB6MvNP63595
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:57:23
-0800 (PST)
Received: from tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (smtp.bellnexxia.net
[209.226.175.26])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB6Mv7f04123
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:57:07 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from rlbell@sympatico.ca)
Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.230.82.62]) by
tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id
<20001206225657.JIAA24951.tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca>
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:56:57 -0500
Message-ID: <3A2EC446.5BCCAE8A@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 17:57:10 -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: Question that may be really *old*...
References: <200012060615.HAA00827@mailb.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: 39d245de0000079e
Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Richard Bell wrote:
>
> >I have some buggy code for two ships slugging it out toe to toe at
> >range 11 (to solve, a la Monte Carlo, the armor vs screens debate,
> >screens win until you up number of p-torps).
>
> ...provided that your hull is strong enough, of course. Eg., there's
> not much point in putting screens on Fragile-hulled ships, while the
> same Mass of armour works pretty OK unless you're fighting Aaron <g>
The ships in question were mass 200, 80 hull integrity SDN's with some
combination of screens and armor. Armor was better earlier, but shields
delay destruction laonger than armor delays the first threshold check.
Of course, shields should not be installed vessels smaller than mass 60.
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:00 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 RAA14506;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:32:15 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB6NUfN64027;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:30:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 15:30:39 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB6NUc564006
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:30:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:JPumFs+q+jBlVUTjOeAjbaVJzV4p9+vE@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB6NUbP64001
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:30:37
-0800 (PST)
Received: from iolite.sge.net (iolite.sge.net [152.91.14.26])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB6NUVf12747
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:30:31 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au)
Received: from cadmium.sge.net (cadmium.sge.net [152.91.9.5])
by iolite.sge.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D01BE63
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:30:28 +1100
(EST)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
by cadmium.sge.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12390
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:30:25 +1100
(EST)
Received: from nodnsquery(10.1.2.20) by cadmium.sge.net via smap (V5.0)
id xma025801; Thu, 7 Dec 00 10:20:37 +1100
Received: from thorium1 (thorium1.sge.net [10.1.2.35])
by kryptonite2.sge.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D1BF53D231
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:11:32 +1100
(EST)
Received: FROM uvite BY thorium1 ; Thu Dec 07 10:12:29 2000 +1100
Message-ID: <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89D10@VSTASV1>
From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: Question that may be really *old*...
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:11:24 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
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: 39d245de0000079f
I know for the first gunslinger I ran, it had 4 turns on the first day,
3 on
the second and then slowed down to about 1 per day after that.
It's all a matter of when people are online. Normally you would have
players scattered across 3 continents, so only about 2/3 of the players
are
online at any one time.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[Pirates] Dame Captain Washalot
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Izenberg, Noam [SMTP:Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 12:54 AM
>
> > Noam, what was our record in the recent PBEM you ran? An hour or
so?
>
> As I recall, we churned out two complete turns in one work day. I
> processed
> one over lunch, I think, and the other in bits and pieces over an hour
or
> two. the speed depends entirely on the players and GM. Most
multiplayer
> games operate on one turn/week, but if it's just two gung-ho players
and a
> GM, a turn every day or two is imminently practical.
>
> Noam
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:01 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 RAA16536;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:40:29 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB6Ncrg64263;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:38:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 15:38:52 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB6NcpU64242
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:6P+6abrB+eh8nrLNRWSvP3WQdH/edRn+@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB6NcoP64237
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:38:50
-0800 (PST)
Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow035o.blueyonder.co.uk
[195.188.53.121])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB6Ncnf14548
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:38:49 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from david@brewer.to)
Received: from brewer.to ([213.48.199.92]) by blueyonder.co.uk with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19);
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:40:07 +0000
Message-ID: <3A2EC954.14EFBA1C@brewer.to>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:18:44 +0000
From: David Brewer <david@brewer.to>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: New firearms technology
References: <200012052226.eB5MQFX08486@tuttle.kansas.net>
<3.0.6.32.20001206025909.00862540@eagle.cc.ukans.edu>
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: 39d245de000007a0
Brian Thomas wrote:
>
> My father is in the Navy, and one of his Marine friends favorite
stories
> was how they used to use the target-illumination radar from a HAWK
battery
> to cook birds in flight. Marines. What can you say?
The original concept of radar was to produce a death-ray capable
of cooking pilots inside their aircraft. This was dropped soon
enough when it became clear that the amount of energy needed to do
this at any range was huge, but some bright spark twigged that
there'd be a reflection that could be used for detection and
ranging.
My grandfather knew people at Boscombe Down during WW2 that used
early radar equipment to warm up their lunches, a sort of early
microwave oven.
--
David Brewer
"It is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a stone at every
dog that barks at you." - George Silver, gentleman, c.1600