Re: [GZG] A new vector movement system
From: Ken Hall <khall39@y...>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [GZG] A new vector movement system
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
am in general agreement with Robert. Seems to me that it's more
parsimonious to "flip the ship" using thrusters and use the main drive
to change the movement vector. Even naval architects working with naval
construction budgets have to save mass where possible, or else we could
just take Doc Smith to the logical limit and drive our planets around
the galaxy. ;-)
The shiphandling requirements would be trivial, but would also give
officers something to grade junior officers on beyond spit and polish.
Best,
Ken
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert N Bryett <rbryett@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GZG] A new vector movement system
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 1:25 AM
From a realism point of view, I'm dubious about the
"Retro-thruster"
idea. It seems to be a refinement of the "Thruster Push" mechanic
from FT2.5 vector, which I've never liked.
We house-rule "thruster-pushes" out of the existing FT vector system,
and only allow thrusters to pivot the ship. All changes to the
overall trajectory of the ship require the use of the main engines.
This house-rule reflects the fact that extremely large, powerful and
heavy engines would be required to achieve significant accelerations
to spaceships massing hundreds or thousands of tonnes with any
reasonably foreseeable technology. The standard FT vector rules have
the ships' manoeuvring thrusters deliver half the acceleration as the
main engines, which seems improbable.
The proposed rules at least restricts the thruster-push to operating
as "retro-rockets". This is good. However, it still implies a pretty
huge engine in the nose of the ship, capable of delivering half the
thrust of the main engine. A T6 frigate for example would have a T3
retro-engine for example. That sounds as if we should apply the
"blind-sector" rule (assuming we're playing it) to the nose of
the
ship as well as the tail.
A second, half-size, retro-engine would be wasted mass for some
ships. A fast courier for example would probably be better off
ditching it to achieve better acceleration from its main engine.
IMHO, it's a bit dubious to just handwave it with no mass allowance
in the design system. By the way, given that the retro-engine thrust
is half main-engine thrust rounded down, how would you handle a T1
battle-station?
In the above remarks, I'm assuming that we're talking about
spaceships propelled by reaction engines. If you have in mind some
exotic reactionless drive (voodoo priests sacrificing chickens in the
engine room for example), all realism bets are off...
Best regards, Robert Bryett
On 10/12/2008, at 22:11 , Hugh Fisher wrote:
> I'm trying to design a new set of vector movement rules for Full
> Thrust that increase the realism without too much extra hassle.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l