Re: [FT]Star Trek rules - BIG thanks & [FT] Some thinking on sensor and operational level games

***
> David, just out of curiosity: What models do you use for your photos?
> Are they in scale to each other?

I know I wasn't asked, but the ones at

http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/FT/INDEX.HTM

are all to the same scale. From different manufacturers as
noted, forex http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/FT/ft_ca1.jpg
are by Galoob, Gamescience, and TSG.
***

Well, Alan, I DID mention you first thing when the rules question came
up.
;->=

David, as you can see by the generated posts, there's a great interest
in
this, and you'd be doing us all a big favor if you caption your piccies.
I've a question or two about the B5/UN page, but I'll be patient.

***
Depends too much on the thrust mechanics. If
a rocket with a plume, we could be talking
detection at a range of Light Years if a matter/
antimatter fusion torch.
***

That is, if you're willing to wait years for the info, which is why
they're
called light years. ;->=

This hasn't been discussed so far that I've noticed; natch, we're all
assuming that an oncoming ship would be way slower, relatively, than the
light coming from it in a combat situation. Least, I am, though if
something coming at me at near lightspeed, it'd almost be on me before I
could 'see' it.

I've tended to assume a subspace sensor system, which might well have a
limited range, but would be fast enough for reasonable firing solutions.

However, I still think we're giving too much credence to current
technology's advantage to detection, while I can imagine, though not
explain, a shift in the other direction.

The_Beast

-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon

One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad