Yeah, just trying to give people lines. Flipping through the books was
just as bad.
As far as the game, the trick would be in using something with easy
tooling or better reusing something widely mass produced like you toy
telescopes or something lol
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 10:04 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Me too, but cost of components... There'd also have to be a step in the
> sequence of play each turn where everyone ratchets all of the objects up
> or down to allow for the fact that someone just dove through the "hard
> deck" or everything is now six feet off the table top. Constantly
> calculating the hypotenuses for range determination would be annoying.
> Perhaps a bit of string dangling from each ship with range bands marked on
> it. More expense or DIY projects... I think the traditional miniatures
> rule that prohibits pre-measuring would have to be voided, the sensors and
> F/C are too sophisticated for that to make sense. I know Sulu used to fire
> phasers by just eyeballing through the Enterprise's windshield, but I
> never even believed that at the time. When Uhura called attention to the
> lack of sensor fusion by saying, "it's gotta have a tailpipe" I just about
> went through the roof.
>
>
>
> > I would love to see a board game with telescoping z axis stands. Colored
> > and notched and or ratcheted perhaps...
> >
> > Easier on a computer simulation. Also would happily model detailed BL
> > level damage...
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 08:33 [Traveller_TNE] <
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Todd--
> >>
> >> That's one way to slice the math, but such a ship wouldn't really be a
> >> 4G
> >> ship, but a 1G ship in four planes (1Gx4). And since those four planes
> >> don't correspond to the six degrees of freedom, thrust in those six
> >> degrees would be compound thrust so would be less than 1G.
> >>
> >> I'd be inclined to say that you compute the power, mass, volume, and
> >> surface area for X number of Gs for your hull, then install as many of
> >> those as you want, although you don't need power for all of them at the
> >> same time. You reach diminishing returns pretty fast on anything except
> >> a
> >> forward-pointing braking thruster in case you decide you want to be able
> >> to decelerate in the direction your ship is pointing. And there would be
> >> big implications for hull streamlining as well.
> >>
> >> The traditional "flames come out the back" model ends up solving too
> >> many
> >> problems, not the least of which is that once you really dig into the 6
> >> degrees of freedom issue you're calling into question the whole flat map
> >> abstraction which is just too hard and clumsy for traditional tabletop
> >> games.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > You could go with the multiple thrust bells, each one reducing the
> >> thrust
> >> > of the main bell at the back to provide it in another direction.
> >> >
> >> > I.e. a Ship with 4G of thrust puts in 3 extra bells at points of a
> >> > tetragon (so there are 4 thrust bells each equidistant from the
> >> other),
> >> > but the ship only has 1G of thrust on each (so the mass demand of the
> >> > three extra bells is made up by the smaller bell in the rear). Great
> >> for
> >> > system defense as it is nimble, but poor on the chase as it only has
> >> 1G
> >> of
> >> > thrust.
> >> >
> >> > http://clowder.net/hop/tetships/tetships.html
> >> > (The extension of the Babylon 5 Starfury concept)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Todd Kes
> >> >
> >> > --------------------------------------------
> >> > On Thu, 4/23/15, [Traveller_TNE]
> >> > <> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > By the way, here's another thing we
> >> > didn't do in FFS, talk about how many
> >> > different axes of thrust you can have. The assumption is
> >> > always that
> >> > you've got the one big "thrust bell" at the back and you
> >> > change your
> >> > attitude to point the thrust in whatever direction you need
> >> > to bend your
> >> > vector. Logically you could build a ship with "thrust bells"
> >> > on multiple
> >> > axes so you could change vectors without having to change
> >> > attitude, but
> >> > that didn't fit with 99.9% of what people usually want to
> >> > build, so we didn't take the time.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
just as bad.
As far as the game, the trick would be in using something with easy
tooling or better reusing something widely mass produced like you toy
telescopes or something lol
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 10:04 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Me too, but cost of components... There'd also have to be a step in the
> sequence of play each turn where everyone ratchets all of the objects up
> or down to allow for the fact that someone just dove through the "hard
> deck" or everything is now six feet off the table top. Constantly
> calculating the hypotenuses for range determination would be annoying.
> Perhaps a bit of string dangling from each ship with range bands marked on
> it. More expense or DIY projects... I think the traditional miniatures
> rule that prohibits pre-measuring would have to be voided, the sensors and
> F/C are too sophisticated for that to make sense. I know Sulu used to fire
> phasers by just eyeballing through the Enterprise's windshield, but I
> never even believed that at the time. When Uhura called attention to the
> lack of sensor fusion by saying, "it's gotta have a tailpipe" I just about
> went through the roof.
>
>
>
> > I would love to see a board game with telescoping z axis stands. Colored
> > and notched and or ratcheted perhaps...
> >
> > Easier on a computer simulation. Also would happily model detailed BL
> > level damage...
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 08:33 [Traveller_TNE] <
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Todd--
> >>
> >> That's one way to slice the math, but such a ship wouldn't really be a
> >> 4G
> >> ship, but a 1G ship in four planes (1Gx4). And since those four planes
> >> don't correspond to the six degrees of freedom, thrust in those six
> >> degrees would be compound thrust so would be less than 1G.
> >>
> >> I'd be inclined to say that you compute the power, mass, volume, and
> >> surface area for X number of Gs for your hull, then install as many of
> >> those as you want, although you don't need power for all of them at the
> >> same time. You reach diminishing returns pretty fast on anything except
> >> a
> >> forward-pointing braking thruster in case you decide you want to be able
> >> to decelerate in the direction your ship is pointing. And there would be
> >> big implications for hull streamlining as well.
> >>
> >> The traditional "flames come out the back" model ends up solving too
> >> many
> >> problems, not the least of which is that once you really dig into the 6
> >> degrees of freedom issue you're calling into question the whole flat map
> >> abstraction which is just too hard and clumsy for traditional tabletop
> >> games.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > You could go with the multiple thrust bells, each one reducing the
> >> thrust
> >> > of the main bell at the back to provide it in another direction.
> >> >
> >> > I.e. a Ship with 4G of thrust puts in 3 extra bells at points of a
> >> > tetragon (so there are 4 thrust bells each equidistant from the
> >> other),
> >> > but the ship only has 1G of thrust on each (so the mass demand of the
> >> > three extra bells is made up by the smaller bell in the rear). Great
> >> for
> >> > system defense as it is nimble, but poor on the chase as it only has
> >> 1G
> >> of
> >> > thrust.
> >> >
> >> > http://clowder.net/hop/tetships/tetships.html
> >> > (The extension of the Babylon 5 Starfury concept)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Todd Kes
> >> >
> >> > --------------------------------------------
> >> > On Thu, 4/23/15, [Traveller_TNE]
> >> > <> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > By the way, here's another thing we
> >> > didn't do in FFS, talk about how many
> >> > different axes of thrust you can have. The assumption is
> >> > always that
> >> > you've got the one big "thrust bell" at the back and you
> >> > change your
> >> > attitude to point the thrust in whatever direction you need
> >> > to bend your
> >> > vector. Logically you could build a ship with "thrust bells"
> >> > on multiple
> >> > axes so you could change vectors without having to change
> >> > attitude, but
> >> > that didn't fit with 99.9% of what people usually want to
> >> > build, so we didn't take the time.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>