Re: FT in a Fluid

agoodall@canada.com wrote:

> Hi, all.
>
> I read in the newspaper today about Canada's attempts to get a Russian
Squall torpedo. This got me thinking about yet another project I really
don't have time for but will go for anyway.
>
> I got thinking of playing a Full Thrust game based inside a gas
giant's atmosphere or as a futuristic submarine game.
>
> Note that my ideas aren't necessarily to use FT starships in the
atmosphere of a gas giant. The idea is to use FT mechanics, and the fact
that FT doesn't have a REAL scale (funny how no seems to have tried to
use FT to represent gunboat and fighter games...), to try a game that
exists in a fluid (gas or liquid).
>
> The concept is that a ship will be somewhat buoyant. The sensors are
sufficient that nothing is "invisible" as it is today. Most of today's
submarine weapons are based on the fact that you can't easily see your
opponent without giving away your own position. My concept is more like
FT ships, with the fluid rendered essentially transparent by modern
sensors. I have some ideas for "depth/altitude". Ships would be
relatively small. A heavy cruiser would represent something akin to a
modern attack sub.
>
> I haven't thought about the following: is this set in the GZG universe
(probably not), is there gravitic technology (probably limited), will
weapons have upper and lower arcs as well as the six "around" arcs
(probably, but not sure how to handle it).
>
> So, what do you think the effects would be on the various ship systems
(FB1 and FB2) when operating in a fluid? What systems make sense in this
environment (should beams be allowed, or would they be defracted by the
fluid? shoudl fighters be allowed, or are the ships too small for
fighters to represent anything?).
>
> Here is a set of first thoughts:
>
> Altitude - Simple, like in Sky Galleons of Mars. 5 altitudes. Each
altitude difference adds so many inches to the distance (yes, not
realistic, but simple). I think I may have a way for things like beam
weapons to sit in an "upper" arc or "lower" arc. Not sure how to "cost"
this, other than perhaps the arc point cost should be half normal.
>

How about just costing it as a "normal 1 arc".	Then you wouldn't have
to figure out all the costs...

>
> Movement - I could run this as a naval game. I have a concept in mind
already where ships would have a maximum speed and maximum acceleration.
Is this necessary, or would a vector game work if the "fluid" had it's
own modifier on the vector? This is a neat concept, actually, and lets
certain "altitudes" be faster than others. For instance, the uppermost
level could subtract 1 from movement rate, while the lowest subtracts 5
(a vessel would need thrust 6 to even move down there).
>

Sounds good.  Sleeker hulls would be faster than simple boxy ones. 
Maybe set it up like the hull strengths or something.

>
> Sinking - I'm not sure how "buoyancy" will work, other than perhaps as
a critical core system. If a ship loses hull integrity, starts to flood,
starts to "slide backwards", or what have you, it can drop too low and
crack.
>

Cool.  Any ship that drops off the bottom of the depth chart is
squashed.
Maybe have ships drop one level lower for each hit row crossed off.

>

> FTL - Uh, no. No FTL movement.
>

Awwww!	:-)

>
> Beams - Beams would remain relatively the same. They are already
adversely affected by range.
>
> Pulse Torps - Use as a "fire and forget" torpedo? I don't think
there's any system in FT akin to the modern wire-guided torpedo. Should
"depth" affect their range?
>

That would be consistant with everything else.

>
> Fighters - I can't really see using fighters, though I've been
considering a weapon that is a cross between a fighter squadron and a
submunition pack.
>

A small one-man sub.  Give it better speed, light weapons, and a low
cost, great for local defense of instalations/ect.  These were also in
use on "SeaQuest".  They were called "Snub fighers" or "Sub-fighters". 
Something like that.

>
> SMLs - These seem to be almost like depth charges or flak. I'm
thinking that their movement would be affected by "depth".
>
> PDS - Not exactly something you find on submarines, but is there any
reason they wouldn't be used in this kind of futuristic environment?
>

On the show "Seaquest" they had "intercepts".  It was a torpedo
interception torpedo.  They fired out the Seaquest's torpedo tubes.

>
> Phalon armour - I was thinking of using this to represent double and
triple hulls.
>
> I've got all sorts of ideas percolating right now. For instance, a
torpedo would maybe be something more like an MT missile. I'm looking
for concepts and ideas. The game would play very much like FT, but
hopefully different enough to be interesting.
>
> So, all concepts and comments are very much welcome!
>
> Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
> __________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

Donald Hosford