Honestly I think I will fail before I get to that step of the analysis but
when in a pinch I think you are correct and if nothing else I can
extrapolate collision of vehicles.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> John--
>
> I just realized something that is going to throw a wrench into your
> calculations. When I agreed it is "possible" for a fighter or other
> platform to hit an enemy ship, that meant theoretically possible.
>
> I just realized, however, that there is no rule in TNE for how to
> calculate whether something like a ship or missile rams another ship. (Am
> I right guys? I don't think so) Off the top of my head, I would say that
> would be a competitive task roll between the two, using G-rating and pilot
> skill as modifiers.
>
> On that basis, it will be perhaps impossible for you to calculate that
> actual probability rate of a missile hit, without a missile hit rule to
> help you do so.
>
> Am I wrong? Other suggestions?
>
>
> Dave
>
> > *1. A lot of the reason that missiles and fighters seem so persuasive to
> > us*
> > *is because of our experience in this world*. But the key difference*
> > *between our world and space combat is the lack of atmo. Planes are*
> > *effective because aerodynamics allows them to do something that ships*
> > *can't, move fast through the air due to aerodynamic lift, and maneuver
> > the*
> > *same way. In atmo, maneuverability comes from control surfaces which
> you*
> > *use over and over again, and consume (effectively) no power. In space,*
> > *maneuvering is only accomplished by expending reaction mass. The more*
> > *maneuvering you must do, the more reaction mass you must carry, the
> > larger*
> > *you get, the bigger a target you become (easier to shoot down), the
> more*
> > *reaction mass you require (the maneuvering mass spiral), the more you*
> > *become another spaceship.*
> > *
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.