RE: [SG] Vehicle design

DS2 offers no help in this case as there is no EW in DS2 (but also
no leader activation of units, so it is not as important as in SG2).

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net	
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaime Tiampo [SMTP:fugu@spikyfishthing.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 2:58 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	Re: [SG] Vehicle design
> 
> Andrew Martin wrote:
> 
> > There's no capacity points cost, in other words, ECM doesn't take up
> > significant ammounts of space. In my rules I have DF equipment take
up
> > space, based on WW2 and modern experience with specialised vehicles.
> There's
> > some more rules on my site, like Navigation warfare that you might
be
> > interested in.
> 
> I'm not talking ECM, but EW equipment. I'll check out your page.
Nothing
> like more information :)
> 
> Jaime
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:09 2001
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 IAA19696;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:39:51 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBREHe991240;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 06:17:39 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBREHcN91218
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vex.cs.colorado.edu (vex.cs.Colorado.EDU
[128.138.241.27])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBREHaH91209
	for <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:37
-0800 (PST)
Received: by vex.cs.colorado.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eBREHVE27787
	for gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:17:31
-0700 (MST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:OmmTn1cdvYBD/MFXOTUrLXZdSVCXJKWZ@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRBe3H89666
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 03:40:03
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange01.dscc.dla.mil (exchange01.dscc.dla.mil
[131.74.160.11])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBRBe3p70502
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 03:40:03 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
Received: by exchange01.dscc.dla.mil with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19)
	id <W6J83V9D>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:39:38 -0500
Message-ID:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D10072D@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: [FT]Weapon variations
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:39:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
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: 39d245de00000a74

Using the FB1 rules, P-Torps can have up to 3 arcs.
But, no, I have not tried an all-arc P-Torp.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org	
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alderfek@aol.com [SMTP:Alderfek@aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 9:28 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	[FT]Weapon variations
> 
> Hi all, 
>  Was curious if anyone in the group had ever used plasma torp rules
for a 
> turreted plasma cannon ? I was planning to get back into FT and was
going 
> through some of my old design notes and I had written down plasma
cannon
> as a 
> main weapon for one of my races but not any stats. So, I had thought
about
> a 
> cannon that used P-torp ranges and rules. Any comments ? 
> 
> Kirk 
> 
> 
> Kirk Alderfer 
> http://members.aol.com/arbron/index.html
> <http://hometown.aol.com/arbron/Main_page.html> 
> 
> "Meandering to a different drummer" 
> 
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:09 2001
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 IAA20344;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:40:59 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBREHqv91340;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 06:17:47 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBREHhV91263
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vex.cs.colorado.edu (vex.cs.Colorado.EDU
[128.138.241.27])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBREHfH91246
	for <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:41
-0800 (PST)
Received: by vex.cs.colorado.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eBREHZP27795
	for gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:17:35
-0700 (MST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Ui8XTE1p1nrXhFoMDLSB4Ivn2/0h5HRA@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRC1OH89834
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 04:01:24
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange01.dscc.dla.mil (exchange01.dscc.dla.mil
[131.74.160.11])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBRC1Op72143
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 04:01:24 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
Received: by exchange01.dscc.dla.mil with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19)
	id <W6J83V0B>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:00:59 -0500
Message-ID:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D10072E@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: Can a FT only Fleet be viable?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:00:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
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: 39d245de00000a77

It would be an interesting mix if you used the FT/2ndEd rules for those 
ships and the FB1/2 rules for those ships.

FT2 Advantages:
1) Less Expensive (I believe)
2) Strong Hulls for all ships
3) Wider firing arcs (greater coverage)
4) Level 3 screens
5) ADS (can attack non-attacking fighters)
6) Cheaper 'A' Beams
7) Can't loose repair crews/More efficient repair crews

FB1 Advantages:
1) Size (FB ships are roughly 2x the size of FT2 ships)
2) Core Systems (FT2 does not have core systems rules)
3) Arcs for P-Torps
4) Smaller Aft Arc
5) More repair crews

IMHO I would think that, in an equal mass game, the FT2 ships 
would have a slight advantage over the FB1 ships except in a 
fighter/missile heavy engagement.

I probably already mentioned it, but you are welcome to browse
the over 200 FT2 ship designs that I have collected at
http://www.ftsr.org/ft/ft2/registry.html

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net  
http://www.ftsr.org	
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Leary [SMTP:john_t_leary@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 4:34 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	Re: Can a FT only Fleet be viable?
> 
> 
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> > Okay, here's a thought -
> > 
> > Can a space force be viable if it only uses the
> > weapons systems from Full
> > Thrust (I have 2nd edition)?
> 
> Just offhand, I would think not.
> The increase in weapons effectiveness and
> hull size and the delayed first threshhold
> would unbalence the game.   Naturally, you
> could work to find a new points balence.
> 
> bye for now,
> John L.
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:09 2001
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 IAA20193;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:40:15 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBREHtf91371;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 06:17:52 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBREHks91292
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vex.cs.colorado.edu (vex.cs.Colorado.EDU
[128.138.241.27])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBREHiH91274
	for <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:44
-0800 (PST)
Received: by vex.cs.colorado.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eBREHcU27800
	for gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:17:38
-0700 (MST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:m2UQ/18DvEV2Q5PpgL/VQkfdInO561E7@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRChmH90261
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 04:43:48
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange01.dscc.dla.mil (exchange01.dscc.dla.mil
[131.74.160.11])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBRChmp74432
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 04:43:48 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
Received: by exchange01.dscc.dla.mil with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19)
	id <W6J83WB2>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:43:23 -0500
Message-ID:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D10072F@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: Ship Names (Kra'Vak)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:43:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
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: 39d245de00000a76

I have been wanting to do an expanded Kra'Vak word-fragment list for
some
time, but have not accomplished it yet.

You can see Jon Tuffley's Official Word-Fragment list that he posted to
the
list as well as Steven Arrowsmith's list it was based on and my
variation
derived from FB2 without seeing JT's list. These are at
http://members.nbci.com/gzg_l/xeno/

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Reindl [SMTP:mreindl@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 11:59 AM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	Re: Ship Names
> 
> Any ideas for ship names for a Kra'vak fleet?  Anything with an
> apostrophe?  As for my ESU fleet, I've just followed the conventions
in
> the book, using cities, rivers/lakes for the smaller classes, and
> prominent names from Russian and Chinese history for the larger
capital
> class ships.	Nothing like playing a scenario where Moscow and
Gorbachev
> beat up on King George :). 
> 
> Mark
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:08 2001
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 HAA01523;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:25:35 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBRD1bO90476;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:01:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 05:00:51 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBRD0oE90449
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:00:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:ENQPrQ7tSisxjJMxKRW8E+PZDoHQyabJ@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRD0nH90444
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:00:49
-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
eBRD0mp75677
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:00:48 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from rlbell@sympatico.ca)
Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.230.73.145]) by
tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net
	  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
	  id
<20001227130042.KERC16490.tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca>
	  for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:00:42 -0500
Message-ID: <3A49E7B0.ECDE8221@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:59:28 -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: some odds and ends
References:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34D27E@host-253.bitheads.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: 39d245de00000a72

"Barclay, Tom" wrote:

> 1) This metalstorm gun thing...
>
> I was just thinking about the whole ammo-packed-removable-barrel idea
and it
> occurs to me that there is probably one major issue (other than
logistical)
> to consider. Zeroing. It seems to me that most marksmanship is the
product
> of a trained shooter, in practice, with a well calibrated and sighted
> weapon. Lack of any of these three components can flatline accuracy.
>
> How is zeroing achieved in modern weaponry? Fire some rounds, adjust
the
> sighting system, fire some more. Repeat. Stop when happy. But the
barrel
> stays in place when ammo is changed. If you clipped the barrels in and
out,
> there would probably be alignment issues. And you can't spend half of
your
> barrel-mag of ammo sighting in the weapon every reload!

One of the problems with the Browning .50 Heavy MG was its tendency for
non-dispersal (it was TOO accurate) at range.  That Automatic weapons
fire
spreads out is a good thing.  I suspect that Metalstorm is not zeroed at
all, a
s
this cannot be done.  The barrels are pointing in the same direction
(mostly),
but the dispersion is needed because the target is not always precisely
located.  Metalstorm is gross overkill for mankilling, and probably will
not be
used for that (claymores are cheaper and lighter).  It will be used to
destroy
aircraft attacking high value targets, or against missiles when mounted
shipboard.  There will never be enough men in one place to warrant
firing one.
Aircraft cost more than metalstorm, and the dispersion means that
something
should hit the aircraft and something hitting the aircraft should
cripple it, a
s
it must be light enough to fly and budgets prevent anything in it from
being
non-essential.

>
>
> Now, you say, there could be some form of locking mechanism. But the
gun
> still has recoil, which would probably cause wear. As to would the
removal
> and insertion of new barrels. In a conventional weapon, this wear
occurs
> where magazines are inserted... and therefore does not affect the
firing
> components (lest the mag falls out...). However, transfer this wear to
the
> lock-in of a removable barrel weapon, and after some period of active
use,
> you have wear that starts to impact long-distance accuracy.

If I was the designer of metalstorm for field use, I would not bother to
consider reloading it at all.  The barrels would be six sigma rated to
fire its
load once and then they are abandoned in the field (I would never force
infantr
y
to carry any spent weapon that cannot be loaded in the field, especially
if its
heavy).

> Now, these weapons do offer some interesting advantages from a
variable rate
> of fire PoV, or from the perspective of someone wanting lots of lead
in the
> same place. They obviously also offer some advantage as far as a
nearly
> sealed firing system (probably more robust in field conditions).
>
> But the question is will these weapons be lighter? I replace a
multi-barrel
> block. Is that lighter than the mag? Both in terms of what I have to
carry
> and the supplies I have to airdrop to my forces.

These will never be issued to line troops as a personal weapon

>
>
> And how about ease of use? One advantage to a mag system (moreso I
suspect
> with front-of-trigger mags than with bullpup) is the ability to keep
the
> weapon loosely on-target during rapid mag changes. And you can tape
them
> together for a quick eject-flip-insert cycle. Can you do this with
barrels?
> Do you have to come off-target to reload? These things can make some
> (perhaps small) difference.

As a support weapon, there is nothing besides shooting at aircraft that
metalstorm does better than a GPMG, and much that it does worse.
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:10 2001
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 IAA20364;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:41:02 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBREHu091375;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 06:17:52 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBREHnm91311
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vex.cs.colorado.edu (vex.cs.Colorado.EDU
[128.138.241.27])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBREHlH91304
	for <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:17:47
-0800 (PST)
Received: by vex.cs.colorado.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eBREHf427804
	for gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:17:41
-0700 (MST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:OsmqE+zgznDZDLFE7El5Aa7xIyRNRA4U@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRD4gH90571
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:04:42
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange01.dscc.dla.mil (exchange01.dscc.dla.mil
[131.74.160.11])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBRD4fp75790
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:04:41 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
Received: by exchange01.dscc.dla.mil with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19)
	id <W6J83WCV>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:04:16 -0500
Message-ID:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D100730@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: Ship Names (was Re: RE-Ship types names)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:04:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
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: 39d245de00000a78

Shoot Him =>
<= No, Shoot Him
Rabit Season!
Duck Season!
Shhh! Be vewy vewy qwiet. I'm huntin' rabbits.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net	   
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Hosford [SMTP:Hosford.Donald@acd.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 1:23 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	Re: Ship Names (was Re: RE-Ship types names)
> 
> Enemy Target #1...Enemy Target #2...(hehehehe)
> 
> Donald Hosford
> 
> John Crimmins wrote:
> 
> > This thread has reminded me....  What kind of naming conventions
have
> > people been following for their Full Thrust ships?	Anything
> particularly
> > fun or interesting to relate?
> >
[snip]
> >
> > John X Crimmins
> > johncrim@voicenet.com
> >   "...is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
> > They control information.  Don't ever piss one off."
> >   --Spider Robinson, The Callahan Touch.
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:08 2001
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 HAA01859;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:27:45 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBRD4eO90557;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:04:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 05:04:39 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBRD4ck90536
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:04:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:uqY+szR1UV63BlFRaR5Fx3DDYB9D6uYm@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRD4bH90531
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:04:37
-0800 (PST)
Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net
[207.217.120.22])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBRD4ap75787
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:04:36 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from ias@sprintmail.com)
Received: from sprintmail.com (ip20.orlando14.fl.pub-ip.psi.net
[38.37.60.20])
	by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id
FAA26364
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:04:35 -0800
(PST)
Message-ID: <3A49ECF4.BE0FD52B@sprintmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:21:56 -0500
From: "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [FT] Terrain
References: <200012261520.eBQFKDp58179@soda.csua.berkeley.edu>
<000e01c06ff9$00aab060$66ee1a3f@pavilion>
X-Corel-MessageType: EMail
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: 39d245de00000a73

The real problem is the shear volume of space.	For example, if you
tried
to accurately depict the Earth-Moon system, Earth would be a 13" dia.
sphere and the Moon would be a 3" dia sphere 384" away.  That's over 10
yards...  It's worse for the gas gaint planets, even if you discard all
of
the small asteroid sized moons...

I've been trying to scale out the Solar System, and the each planetary
system.  I originally thought of doing the planets at 1mu = 1mm (map
scale) = 1000km (actual size).	Even with only the major moons, dia >=
1000km, you still need huge amounts of paper:
Jupiter    4 meters across
Saturn	  7.2 meters across
Uranus	  0.4 meters across (Hurrah, a sane one!)
Neptune    7.2 meters across

The problem with increasing the scale to 1mu = 1mm = 10,000km is that
most
of planets and moons go to points...

IAS