Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

--- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

> > It simply
> > stands to reason that a little bitty destroyer
> should not have the
> same
> > equations for thrust-to-mass ratio as the Death
> Star.
> 
> Er?  I'm not a physicist, but why does it stand to
> reason?  Main Drive
> is a percentage of the ship, remember.

I'm not a physicist either, but you're right when it
comes to thrust:  F=ma is a linear equation.  

But that only states that the amount of power needed
to accelerate an object increases linearly as it's
mass increases.  

However, when it comes to ship construction, points
are related specifically to game effects, not just
physics.  Thus while the amount of Force needed to
produce 1 point of thrust increases linearly with the
mass of the ship, the combat effectiveness of a ship
with X thrust may (or may not, depending on who you
talk to) increase non-linearly as the ship's mass
increases.

If so, there are two ways to mitigate this:  you can
either state that the engine mass required to produce
X amount of Force (ie thrust) increases more than
linearly as the amount of Force increases, meaning
that the bigger the ship, the greater the percentage
of it's mass is required for engines (IIRC that's
calle diminishing returns), 

OR, if you don't want to mess with current design
parameters, you make the  make the formula for the
COST of the engine non-linear, and tied directly to
ship mass.  Maybe, and this is Ex Gluteus, so don't
think I'm advocating it, the point value for the
engines should be based on the mass of the engines
times some fraction of the overall mass of the
ship.....  

=====
Qui me amat, amet et canem meum.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com