info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
24 years later...
156 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Hamilton
Nov 2, 2016, 11:16:04 AM11/2/16
to
And R.G.M is still here. Woop woop.
Devillin
Nov 3, 2016, 7:26:05 AM11/3/16
to
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 11:16:04 AM UTC-4, Peter Hamilton wrote:
> And R.G.M is still here. Woop woop.
Not that anyone uses it any more. :-(
> And R.G.M is still here. Woop woop.
Alexander Williams
Nov 3, 2016, 7:04:52 PM11/3/16
to
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 11:16:04 AM UTC-4, Peter Hamilton wrote:
> And R.G.M is still here. Woop woop.
For extra irony, some of the folks who were here "back in the day" still monitor any updates or activity in the group.
I'm not sure what that says about me, but obviously true. Because here I am.
Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Nov 5, 2016, 4:22:22 AM11/5/16
to
Once you are actually reading one group, keeping an eye on others is
nearly free so you may as well do it.
I'm down to three groups worth firing up the newsreader for, two of which
are in their final death throes and the third of which is creeping
towards being nothing but an ongoing flamewar against one person, (at
least they're on-topic flamewars).
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)
Jonathan Schattke
Nov 6, 2016, 3:38:12 AM11/6/16
to
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 10:16:04 AM UTC-5, Peter Hamilton wrote:
> And R.G.M is still here. Woop woop.
For values of "still here" where no activity in months qualifies.
> And R.G.M is still here. Woop woop.
But at least it is not full of SPAM
Camille the Undying
Nov 20, 2016, 3:41:39 PM11/20/16
to
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 11:16:04 AM UTC-4, Peter Hamilton wrote:
> And R.G.M is still here. Woop woop.
I am Camille's complete lack of surprise.
Alexander Williams
Nov 21, 2016, 7:49:37 AM11/21/16
to
David Damerell
Nov 21, 2016, 6:11:30 PM11/21/16
to
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is First Sunday, November - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Second Monday, November.
bwc.de...@gmail.com
Sep 10, 2017, 5:29:49 PM9/10/17
to
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 11:16:04 AM UTC-4, Peter Hamilton wrote:
> And R.G.M is still here. Woop woop.
Damn, it's been 24 years?
Alexander Williams
Sep 11, 2017, 11:46:43 AM9/11/17
to
Some of the games it was inspired by are currently experiencing a Renaissance of their own. It's an interesting time to be alive for both gamers of all kinds and those with a specific interest in giant robots.
That means us.
That means us.
Devillin
Sep 20, 2017, 10:06:47 AM9/20/17
to
On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 11:46:43 AM UTC-4, Alexander Williams wrote:
> Some of the games it was inspired by are currently experiencing a Renaissance of their own. It's an interesting time to be alive for both gamers of all kinds and those with a specific interest in giant robots.
>
> That means us.
Yeah. It has been a little wild to see both the rebirth of games like Battletech, and the newer games coming out in the same genre.
> Some of the games it was inspired by are currently experiencing a Renaissance of their own. It's an interesting time to be alive for both gamers of all kinds and those with a specific interest in giant robots.
>
> That means us.
David Damerell
Sep 22, 2017, 6:02:18 PM9/22/17
to
Quoting Devillin <devi...@hotmail.com>:
>Yeah. It has been a little wild to see both the rebirth of games like
>Battletech,
What, again? I haven't really been keeping track; last I looked I thought
>Yeah. It has been a little wild to see both the rebirth of games like
>Battletech,
Wizkids had kind of dug it out of the Dark Ages nonsense and put out
essentially the same old Battletech, but I've got that (I did pick up
their master rulebook, admittedly) and besides, I'm more and more fed up
with initiative-and-alternate-moves since it so often comes down to an
initiative-rolling contest.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Wednesday, September.
Tomorrow will be Thursday, September.
Jonathan Schattke
Sep 23, 2017, 9:56:43 AM9/23/17
to
On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 5:02:18 PM UTC-5, David Damerell wrote:
> I'm more and more fed up
> with initiative-and-alternate-moves since it so often comes down to an
> initiative-rolling contest.
Then go to impulse play, steal the move sequence from Car Wars or Starfleet Battles.
> I'm more and more fed up
> with initiative-and-alternate-moves since it so often comes down to an
> initiative-rolling contest.
David Damerell
Sep 23, 2017, 10:05:51 AM9/23/17
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>boardgame) are trying to get away from Same Old Battletech and more
>towards what I think is now called Alpha Strike - which had its
>origins in the Battleforce system.
That sounds encouraging (roll-and-move isn't so bad with large unit counts
permitted by a streamlined combat system), but I also read the conga line
problem is worse than ever. If only someone else had another variant set
of Battletech rules. :-)
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Today is Thursday, September.
Tomorrow will be Friday, September.
>On 2017-09-23, David Damerell wrote:
>>their master rulebook, admittedly) and besides, I'm more and more fed up
>>with initiative-and-alternate-moves since it so often comes down to an
>>initiative-rolling contest.
>As far as I can see, Catalyst (the current licencees for the
>>their master rulebook, admittedly) and besides, I'm more and more fed up
>>with initiative-and-alternate-moves since it so often comes down to an
>>initiative-rolling contest.
>boardgame) are trying to get away from Same Old Battletech and more
>towards what I think is now called Alpha Strike - which had its
>origins in the Battleforce system.
That sounds encouraging (roll-and-move isn't so bad with large unit counts
permitted by a streamlined combat system), but I also read the conga line
problem is worse than ever. If only someone else had another variant set
of Battletech rules. :-)
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Today is Thursday, September.
Tomorrow will be Friday, September.
David Damerell
Sep 23, 2017, 2:33:50 PM9/23/17
to
woe.]
Tried that in 1990 or so, with an allotment of MP every impulse
based on selected move mode. It doesn't work for two reasons; first of all
it's very slow (yes, it works in SFB but I think one has different
expectations of the complexity of a single unit there, and also the
multiple MP costs of some moves both mean carryover bookkeeping and
telegraphing your move next impulse to the opponent), and secondly
having those intermediate positions isn't as useful as one might think.
If there's firing opportunities every impulse (or more than once a turn)
cover becomes much less useful because you can't move from one woods
patch to another without inviting fire when out in the open (which may
be realistic, but it still doesn't work gameplay-wise and realism is
an absurd goal in a mecha game anyway) and the question of how to
calculate a Mech's speed arises, which wants a subsection of its own:
Based on movement over the last turn's-worth of impulses? A load of book-
keeping, and when you move away from a stop you are highly vulnerable;
that Locust that just took its first step out of the woods is speed-1.
Based on movement "right now", in the current impulse? Every time you
turn a corner, climb a hill, or enter woods you're a sitting duck, to a
much greater degree than in the standard game.
Based on a snapshot over some intermediate period? You get an
intermediate quantity of these downsides.
Based on maximum speed whether or not you spend the MP? A massive boon to
fast 'Mechs who can get the bonuses to defence while staying where they
are.
Set a speed and compel you to spend the MP, as if we _were_ playing SFB?
But I can turn back and forth on the spot to use them up, reducing it to
the previous case. Restrict that? Fast 'Mechs are now a lot less use in
tight confines, and we need a bunch of rules for running into things when
you can't stop (hopefully better ones than CityTech's, where you can go
twice as fast as normal by falling on your arse at just the right time.)
It's particularly bad for jump movement where, say, a nice repositioning
in heavy woods turns into a clay pigeon shoot for everyone on the
battlefield.
It also reduces the impact of weapon minimum range restrictions, which
is handy for PPCs because it's not like they were the best weapon [1]
in the game anyway, and adds some bookkeeping at to when a weapon last
fired. For added joy either heat dissipation has to be done on an impulse
basis or there are further difficulties (if heat penalties immediate, fire
late in the turn to get rid of them sooner; fire turn+1 impulses apart to
get two heat dissipation steps before the next volley [2].)
If firing opportunities stay once a turn it really throws into sharp focus
the inability to fire at Mechs during those intermediate positions, where
in the standard game that inability isn't so very obvious. Every player at
the table is going to ask themselves (or you) _why_ they can't fire at
these points that are now so clearly displayed, why we are bothering to
simulate them at all if we can't do any shooting.
I think much of the problem with roll-and-move is the devastating effects
of rear shots [3]. Moving a Mech first is really bad if the enemy can get
even one Mech behind it, leading to the conga line we all know and
tolerate. Remove rear shots? (Move the armour to the front of the torso, or
maybe somewhere else if it's a stock Mech with mad armour distribution.)
This is pretty bad for positional play.
Fortunately, we can solve that by addressing another problem - firing arcs
are really huge. With torso twisting, a Mech has a 240 degree firing arc;
300 on arm-mounted weapons, 360 on arm-flippers. Firing arcs barely matter
at all. Reduce them to (say) 180 degrees, 210 on arm mounted weapon,
discarding the entire torso twist mechanism (yes, now you can fire at two
targets at the extreme edge of your firing arcs 240 degrees apart but a)
you could fire at targets 240 degrees apart beforehand b) how often does
it happen anyway c) if you really care add a rule to stop it), which is
largely a pointless speedbump in combat resolution until you just play
with the implicit arcs anyway.
Getting behind someone is still useful - you get a close-range shot
without return fire, and limit their target selection - and easier to do,
but it's not overpowering because to completely neutralise an enemy 'Mech
(for this turn, not forever) you've got to get everything out of its arc
or under cover.
[1] Yes, I'm stuck in 3025, and yes, medium laser arrays might also claim
that title.
[2] Admittely this improves some of the overgunned underheatsinked stock
'Mechs like the Rifleman or Marauder, which can now squeeze off three full
salvos not two before heat problems get horrendous, and improving these
might be seen as a good thing.
[3] Or, if you're using the broken stock partial cover rules,
intentionally moving to where the enemy has partial cover but otherwise
you have a good chance to hit, which makes their head much easier to
hit because, I don't know, you're a Victorian and you find ankles super
distracting or something.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
David Damerell
Sep 27, 2017, 12:26:33 PM9/27/17
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>On 2017-09-24, David Damerell wrote:
>slow_, something that Battletech doesn't need more of.
I think I'd say in SFB's defence that it's not that slow given that a
viable number of units to control is "one", as a result of the impulse
movement system and scope for deviousness with that single unit. I don't
really think one can play Battletech with less than a lance a side without
initiative completely dominating, and that's a comparable amount of work
to an SFB single-ship duel [1] with a much bigger chance of being
lord-of-the-diced by headshots or something.
I mean, I do think SFB is too complex (and irritatingly Federation
Commander is too simple), but I think the main reason I don't play SFB
much is more to do with Steve Cole's intransigence (choking development of
automated play aids in a game that cries out for same, etc), the amount of
other stuff on my shelves, recent discovery of 18xx games to scratch the
complexity itch, etc...
>Really to match the anime a mech shouldn't have ablative armour; it
>should have a status that's "fine", "temporarily stunned", or "out of
>the fight", with a small chance of specific systems being knocked out
>so that the heroic pilot has to do something clever.
If anything, depending on your mecha anime, getting damaged should
increase effectiveness; but the gameplay implications are alarming. That
said, I never really thought of Battletech's lumbering monoliths as anime
mecha, even though when I started (like you) the Unseen were all there was
to see.
[1] Especially if you automate damage control, movement, etc, but see
above re intransigence.
Today is First Gloucesterday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Leicesterday, September.
>On 2017-09-24, David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com>:
>>>Then go to impulse play, steal the move sequence from Car Wars or
>>>Starfleet Battles.
>The first problem I see here is that both SFB and Car Wars are _very
>>>Then go to impulse play, steal the move sequence from Car Wars or
>>>Starfleet Battles.
>slow_, something that Battletech doesn't need more of.
I think I'd say in SFB's defence that it's not that slow given that a
viable number of units to control is "one", as a result of the impulse
movement system and scope for deviousness with that single unit. I don't
really think one can play Battletech with less than a lance a side without
initiative completely dominating, and that's a comparable amount of work
to an SFB single-ship duel [1] with a much bigger chance of being
lord-of-the-diced by headshots or something.
I mean, I do think SFB is too complex (and irritatingly Federation
Commander is too simple), but I think the main reason I don't play SFB
much is more to do with Steve Cole's intransigence (choking development of
automated play aids in a game that cries out for same, etc), the amount of
other stuff on my shelves, recent discovery of 18xx games to scratch the
complexity itch, etc...
>Really to match the anime a mech shouldn't have ablative armour; it
>should have a status that's "fine", "temporarily stunned", or "out of
>the fight", with a small chance of specific systems being knocked out
>so that the heroic pilot has to do something clever.
If anything, depending on your mecha anime, getting damaged should
increase effectiveness; but the gameplay implications are alarming. That
said, I never really thought of Battletech's lumbering monoliths as anime
mecha, even though when I started (like you) the Unseen were all there was
to see.
[1] Especially if you automate damage control, movement, etc, but see
above re intransigence.
Today is First Gloucesterday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Leicesterday, September.
Tim Skirvin
Sep 27, 2017, 5:17:09 PM9/27/17
to
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (David Damerell) writes:
> ...recent discovery of 18xx games to scratch the complexity itch, etc...
Battletech -> 18xx is a thing? Awesome! I'm not alone!
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tskirvin Skirv's Pictures
> ...recent discovery of 18xx games to scratch the complexity itch, etc...
Battletech -> 18xx is a thing? Awesome! I'm not alone!
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tskirvin Skirv's Pictures
David Damerell
Sep 27, 2017, 7:38:58 PM9/27/17
to
Quoting Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org>:
>dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (David Damerell) writes:
>> ...recent discovery of 18xx games to scratch the complexity itch, etc...
> Battletech -> 18xx is a thing? Awesome! I'm not alone!
With the proviso that that arrow is more a tiny bit of a meandering
>dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (David Damerell) writes:
>> ...recent discovery of 18xx games to scratch the complexity itch, etc...
> Battletech -> 18xx is a thing? Awesome! I'm not alone!
flowchart of games, sure. :-)
Hm. "3025", where one invests in the five Successor States (presumably as
rival puppetmaster factions of ComStar) and then does err something to
affect who comes out on top? I think this may need work.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is First Leicesterday, September.
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Tomorrow will be First Brieday, September.
David Damerell
Sep 28, 2017, 3:53:44 PM9/28/17
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>no? https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8045/princes-renaissance
I think I'd want to keep 18xxisms like the game being deterministic and
the (normally total) lack of secret data. Not that this would make a good
game about the BattleTech universe. :-/
>On 2017-09-28, David Damerell wrote:
>>Hm. "3025", where one invests in the five Successor States (presumably as
>>rival puppetmaster factions of ComStar) and then does err something to
>>affect who comes out on top? I think this may need work.
>That would be pretty much a reskin of _Princes of the Renaissance_,
>>Hm. "3025", where one invests in the five Successor States (presumably as
>>rival puppetmaster factions of ComStar) and then does err something to
>>affect who comes out on top? I think this may need work.
>no? https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8045/princes-renaissance
I think I'd want to keep 18xxisms like the game being deterministic and
the (normally total) lack of secret data. Not that this would make a good
game about the BattleTech universe. :-/
David Damerell
Sep 28, 2017, 4:16:12 PM9/28/17
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>I haven't played FedCom.
FedCom is... trying to keep it short because this isn't even a mecha game,
but no secret data, all power save power for movement and multi-turn
weapons is reserve power, pick a baseline speed 0/8/16/24 then optionally
accelerate in any impulse you weren't due to move, 8 firing impulses a
turn (but 32 movement), most systems are reduced to the basics (all drones
are type-I speed-24, photons are standard or full overload, no EPT/shotgun
plasma, etc), everything is me-too not secret and simultaneous.
... it's not bad but there's isn't quite _enough_; the complete lack of
secret data goes too far and the ease of going speed 24 (without
housekeeping, effectively speed 20) and switching to 32 on demand means
plasma, drones, and fusions alike are even worse off and it's hard to
kill ships when a moderately injured opponent can cruise off at full speed
and do repairs indefinitely (an otherwise solid change).
There's good stuff in there (everything me-too), there's some bad stuff
(replacing the DAC with a slightly faster system that produces much worse
results, 1/3 move cost frigates are now 1/4 not 3/8 (all fractions are
1/2^n) and this makes the Fed FF godlike and most FFs very good), but
ultimately I feel there's a sweet spot to be found which I might look for
it I wasn't kind of burned out on the Star Fleet Universe and it wasn't so
hard to discuss varianting.
>also Shipwreck and Victory at Sea (the latter derived from a Babylon 5
>starship combat game), where multiple systems get lumped together and
>it feels horribly low resolution, but you can play a large battle in a
>reasonable time and get a plausible-seeming result. So I grit my teeth
>and accept the low detail.
I'd like to play more _Close Action_, but basically that demands PBEM and
a lot of bodies, because it bring about period tactics by having "one
ship, one player" (not a lot of work per ship) and a fog of confusion from
highly limited signalling.
>I suppose a reasonable place to start from a game point of view would
>be that the stuff in the anime is the stories they tell in the bar,
>but the game is mostly about the normal grunts.
Ha, this I like. (Although of course the universe can never quite decide
if 'Mechs are incredibly precious relics of a time goneby and hence
'Mechwarriors a tiny elite, or not - taking 3025 as a baseline, it seems
clear no DropShip should ever dispense anything but a cloud of tanks and
infantry, with 'Mechs being held in reserve by the defenders for the most
dire of straits...)
My favourite BattleTech universe oddity, incidentally, is that jumpships
have such high specific impulse, based on the amount of dV they get per kg
of reaction mass, that the exhaust velocity must necessarily be
99.99something% of the speed of light. They put guns on them because... ?
Tomorrow will be First Brieday, September.
>I haven't played FedCom.
FedCom is... trying to keep it short because this isn't even a mecha game,
but no secret data, all power save power for movement and multi-turn
weapons is reserve power, pick a baseline speed 0/8/16/24 then optionally
accelerate in any impulse you weren't due to move, 8 firing impulses a
turn (but 32 movement), most systems are reduced to the basics (all drones
are type-I speed-24, photons are standard or full overload, no EPT/shotgun
plasma, etc), everything is me-too not secret and simultaneous.
... it's not bad but there's isn't quite _enough_; the complete lack of
secret data goes too far and the ease of going speed 24 (without
housekeeping, effectively speed 20) and switching to 32 on demand means
plasma, drones, and fusions alike are even worse off and it's hard to
kill ships when a moderately injured opponent can cruise off at full speed
and do repairs indefinitely (an otherwise solid change).
There's good stuff in there (everything me-too), there's some bad stuff
(replacing the DAC with a slightly faster system that produces much worse
results, 1/3 move cost frigates are now 1/4 not 3/8 (all fractions are
1/2^n) and this makes the Fed FF godlike and most FFs very good), but
ultimately I feel there's a sweet spot to be found which I might look for
it I wasn't kind of burned out on the Star Fleet Universe and it wasn't so
hard to discuss varianting.
>also Shipwreck and Victory at Sea (the latter derived from a Babylon 5
>starship combat game), where multiple systems get lumped together and
>it feels horribly low resolution, but you can play a large battle in a
>reasonable time and get a plausible-seeming result. So I grit my teeth
>and accept the low detail.
I'd like to play more _Close Action_, but basically that demands PBEM and
a lot of bodies, because it bring about period tactics by having "one
ship, one player" (not a lot of work per ship) and a fog of confusion from
highly limited signalling.
>I suppose a reasonable place to start from a game point of view would
>be that the stuff in the anime is the stories they tell in the bar,
>but the game is mostly about the normal grunts.
Ha, this I like. (Although of course the universe can never quite decide
if 'Mechs are incredibly precious relics of a time goneby and hence
'Mechwarriors a tiny elite, or not - taking 3025 as a baseline, it seems
clear no DropShip should ever dispense anything but a cloud of tanks and
infantry, with 'Mechs being held in reserve by the defenders for the most
dire of straits...)
My favourite BattleTech universe oddity, incidentally, is that jumpships
have such high specific impulse, based on the amount of dV they get per kg
of reaction mass, that the exhaust velocity must necessarily be
99.99something% of the speed of light. They put guns on them because... ?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is First Leicesterday, September.
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Tomorrow will be First Brieday, September.
David Damerell
Sep 29, 2017, 2:22:51 PM9/29/17
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
Don't thank me, it came out kind of long even trying to keep it short. :-/
>In mecha game terms, I don't think there's a lot of room for hidden
>information, though. You might have units concealed in buildings,
>maybe, in certain scenarios.
Just off the top of my head, what if selection of BattleTech movement mode
was secret-and-simultaneous at the start of the turn?
>Indeed. I _liked_ the idea that tech progress was going backwards,
>plausible or not; 'Mechs being rare is a symptom of that.
I don't think it helps that they over-egged the pudding so much. They're
not just rare, they're super-rare and incredibly precious... and yet, they
can't even be maintained properly, in spite of the vast efforts that would
presumably be made to maintain something so rare and precious. (Sure, we
might have lost so much tech we can't even maintain them with such
efforts, but this militates even further against ever using the things...)
And why do mercenaries own them? They're colossal white elephants and
furthermore instead of being shot at for money one could sell up and have
a huge pile of money and not be shot at. Let alone pirates - we're going
to use the most valuable objects in the universe to steal valuables. I
can suggest an optimisation to that procedure!
It gets even worse as we establish that Dropships are even more rare and
precious than 'Mechs, Jumpships even more rare and precious than
Dropships, etc...
>ITYM dropships again? Jumpships are the ones that have solar sails
>because their fusion plants can't supply the rich chunky power needed
>to charge a jump core... and the sails produce a peak of 40 watts.
Jumpships too - eg a Merchant-class Jumpship uses 19.75 tons of fuel per
burn-day, producing 0.1G - a dV of 85 km/s. It weighs 120,000 tons.
Conservation of momentum implies the exhaust velocity, neglecting
relativistic effects, would be 5.1 * 10^8 m/s. Since we don't live in a
Newtonian universe, we know it will be less than that, but it's pretty
darn close to lightspeed.
Assuming these "tons" are American short tons (up until now they
cancelled), which I suppose is probably true in an American publication
of this vintage, and if I haven't made some silly error driving "units",
the energy output is about 5.5 * 10^16 W, which isn't much by E.E. Smith
standards but is about a tenth of the total solar input to the Earth so
would probably seriously annoy anything it hit.
Dropships and Jumpships establishes the drive is a fusion reaction (I have
generously assumed all the mass consumed is reaction mass; the specific
impulse must be still higher otherwise) emitting plasma exhaust. (As you
note, it's not really clear why we bother with a solar panel sail with this
colossal fusion plant available...)
Today is First Brieday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Gouday, September.
>On 2017-09-29, David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>I haven't played FedCom.
>>FedCom is... trying to keep it short because this isn't even a mecha game,
>Thanks.
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>I haven't played FedCom.
>>FedCom is... trying to keep it short because this isn't even a mecha game,
Don't thank me, it came out kind of long even trying to keep it short. :-/
>In mecha game terms, I don't think there's a lot of room for hidden
>information, though. You might have units concealed in buildings,
>maybe, in certain scenarios.
Just off the top of my head, what if selection of BattleTech movement mode
was secret-and-simultaneous at the start of the turn?
>Indeed. I _liked_ the idea that tech progress was going backwards,
>plausible or not; 'Mechs being rare is a symptom of that.
I don't think it helps that they over-egged the pudding so much. They're
not just rare, they're super-rare and incredibly precious... and yet, they
can't even be maintained properly, in spite of the vast efforts that would
presumably be made to maintain something so rare and precious. (Sure, we
might have lost so much tech we can't even maintain them with such
efforts, but this militates even further against ever using the things...)
And why do mercenaries own them? They're colossal white elephants and
furthermore instead of being shot at for money one could sell up and have
a huge pile of money and not be shot at. Let alone pirates - we're going
to use the most valuable objects in the universe to steal valuables. I
can suggest an optimisation to that procedure!
It gets even worse as we establish that Dropships are even more rare and
precious than 'Mechs, Jumpships even more rare and precious than
Dropships, etc...
>ITYM dropships again? Jumpships are the ones that have solar sails
>because their fusion plants can't supply the rich chunky power needed
>to charge a jump core... and the sails produce a peak of 40 watts.
Jumpships too - eg a Merchant-class Jumpship uses 19.75 tons of fuel per
burn-day, producing 0.1G - a dV of 85 km/s. It weighs 120,000 tons.
Conservation of momentum implies the exhaust velocity, neglecting
relativistic effects, would be 5.1 * 10^8 m/s. Since we don't live in a
Newtonian universe, we know it will be less than that, but it's pretty
darn close to lightspeed.
Assuming these "tons" are American short tons (up until now they
cancelled), which I suppose is probably true in an American publication
of this vintage, and if I haven't made some silly error driving "units",
the energy output is about 5.5 * 10^16 W, which isn't much by E.E. Smith
standards but is about a tenth of the total solar input to the Earth so
would probably seriously annoy anything it hit.
Dropships and Jumpships establishes the drive is a fusion reaction (I have
generously assumed all the mass consumed is reaction mass; the specific
impulse must be still higher otherwise) emitting plasma exhaust. (As you
note, it's not really clear why we bother with a solar panel sail with this
colossal fusion plant available...)
Today is First Brieday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Gouday, September.
David Damerell
Sep 30, 2017, 5:20:40 AM9/30/17
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>written orders executed simultaneously. Is it a better point?
I dunno - I'm just saying, I think there is some room because one can
imagine such mechanics. That said, I think it's a superficially plausible
rule, and does introduce the important element of something I have
committed in prior planning which you don't yet know.
>What can a 'Mech do that makes it better than a tank?
I think it's a mistake to think about this in too much detail, because one
rapidly reaches the conclusion that the 'Mech's tall profile, unstable gun
platform, many exposed joints, and horrendous area-to-volume ratio mean
the answer is "get holes in it".
>In rough terrain, even the height might not be such a terrible
>disadvantage: the enemy can see you, but you can see them
I'd rather be in the hull-down tank than in the 'Mech, me.
I mean, I like the 3025 dying-technology setting; I just think FASA
grossly overdid it, in a way that requires overly vigorous suspension of
disbelief.
>Reminds me of a boardgame I played recently (Dead Men Tell No Tales):
>you're pirates going into an undead-infested, burning ship to get
>loot, in spite of the fact that you already have a decanter of
>infinite rum.
Oh, yes, I've played that. The way the ship's just a maze of rooms is a
bit unsatisfying, too. The theme seems to be a bit tacked on, pirates are
trendy, so are zombies - it's a miracle there aren't ninja and
cheeseburger-consuming cats, too.
>But this approach actually makes Solaris VII look _more_ plausible:
>Formula 1 cars are also ridiculously expensive.
But superbly maintained. Solaris VII is (I think) in the slightly more
sensible version of the universe where, sure, 'Mechs are expensive but not
actually lost technology, and their superb combat density compared to
tanks (for, er, reasons) is what makes them what gets used in Dropships.
>Also, let's approximate the Merchant as a 5:1 cylinder that's (DS&JS)
>320m long, so 64m diameter. That's about 70e3 m^2 surface area.
>Assuming 99.9% efficiency on the power output, it's still blackbody
>radiating at 10e3 K.
I must remember to do this calculation - you've done it before in some
other context and it always produces an amusing result.
>The way to fix all of this, I suspect, is to drop this whole "crossing
>solar systems" thing. Nobody seems to have even a theoretical drive
>that produces both high acceleration and high specific impulse.
Aside from Project Orion? Nothing like as good as the BattleTech drive,
but it ticks both those boxes.
In the BattleTech universe, given we already have a magic FTL drive, I
don't see why it can't produce a bit more magic and give us reactionless
acceleration in-system...
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is First Gouday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Chedday, September - a public holiday.
>On 2017-09-30, David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>In mecha game terms, I don't think there's a lot of room for hidden
>>>information, though.
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>In mecha game terms, I don't think there's a lot of room for hidden
>>>information, though.
>>Just off the top of my head, what if selection of BattleTech movement mode
>>was secret-and-simultaneous at the start of the turn?
>Well, that's a point on the continuum between BT one-at-a-time, and
>>was secret-and-simultaneous at the start of the turn?
>written orders executed simultaneously. Is it a better point?
I dunno - I'm just saying, I think there is some room because one can
imagine such mechanics. That said, I think it's a superficially plausible
rule, and does introduce the important element of something I have
committed in prior planning which you don't yet know.
>What can a 'Mech do that makes it better than a tank?
I think it's a mistake to think about this in too much detail, because one
rapidly reaches the conclusion that the 'Mech's tall profile, unstable gun
platform, many exposed joints, and horrendous area-to-volume ratio mean
the answer is "get holes in it".
>In rough terrain, even the height might not be such a terrible
>disadvantage: the enemy can see you, but you can see them
I'd rather be in the hull-down tank than in the 'Mech, me.
I mean, I like the 3025 dying-technology setting; I just think FASA
grossly overdid it, in a way that requires overly vigorous suspension of
disbelief.
>Reminds me of a boardgame I played recently (Dead Men Tell No Tales):
>you're pirates going into an undead-infested, burning ship to get
>loot, in spite of the fact that you already have a decanter of
>infinite rum.
Oh, yes, I've played that. The way the ship's just a maze of rooms is a
bit unsatisfying, too. The theme seems to be a bit tacked on, pirates are
trendy, so are zombies - it's a miracle there aren't ninja and
cheeseburger-consuming cats, too.
>But this approach actually makes Solaris VII look _more_ plausible:
>Formula 1 cars are also ridiculously expensive.
But superbly maintained. Solaris VII is (I think) in the slightly more
sensible version of the universe where, sure, 'Mechs are expensive but not
actually lost technology, and their superb combat density compared to
tanks (for, er, reasons) is what makes them what gets used in Dropships.
>Also, let's approximate the Merchant as a 5:1 cylinder that's (DS&JS)
>320m long, so 64m diameter. That's about 70e3 m^2 surface area.
>Assuming 99.9% efficiency on the power output, it's still blackbody
>radiating at 10e3 K.
I must remember to do this calculation - you've done it before in some
other context and it always produces an amusing result.
>The way to fix all of this, I suspect, is to drop this whole "crossing
>solar systems" thing. Nobody seems to have even a theoretical drive
>that produces both high acceleration and high specific impulse.
Aside from Project Orion? Nothing like as good as the BattleTech drive,
but it ticks both those boxes.
In the BattleTech universe, given we already have a magic FTL drive, I
don't see why it can't produce a bit more magic and give us reactionless
acceleration in-system...
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is First Gouday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Chedday, September - a public holiday.
David Damerell
Oct 5, 2017, 7:01:56 AM10/5/17
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>So you're committed to walk/run/jump. This cuts down the opportunities
>to react to an enemy unit's placement, and probably means fewer
>physical attacks. (I've always found physical attacks essentially
>silly, so that's good.)
Silly but effective, a heavy putting the boot in can seriously ruin your
day. I guess it comes down to not quite knowing if the game's a mecha
anime (and of course has physical attacks) or an essentially serious
setting...
>>I mean, I like the 3025 dying-technology setting; I just think FASA
>>grossly overdid it, in a way that requires overly vigorous suspension of
>>disbelief.
>Fair enough. I'm trying to come up with ways of making a giant stompy
>robot game that doesn't blow all my plausibility fuses at once.
I think what I'm getting at (perhaps reiterating needlessly) is - the
existence and military effectiveness of giant robots in a mecha game gets,
to me, a free pass. I don't fret over making their effectiveness make
sense both because I can't and because I just accept it as a necessary
fudge.
It's everything else that needs looking at for suspension of disbelief
being stretched, and the "everything's dying but there still seem to be
lots of 'Mechs right now" aspect of 3025 is very prominent.
>>In the BattleTech universe, given we already have a magic FTL drive, I
>>don't see why it can't produce a bit more magic and give us reactionless
>>acceleration in-system...
>Reactionless drive means cheap planet-killers if anyone can steal a
>spaceship.
Hm, yes. It wants to turn into one of those convenient videogame drives
that goes faster the further you are from any massive body.
[I've snipped a discussion re plausible dropship drives here because it
all seems about right and I don't really have anything to add...]
Today is Second Leicesterday, September.
Tomorrow will be Second Brieday, September.
>So you're committed to walk/run/jump. This cuts down the opportunities
>to react to an enemy unit's placement, and probably means fewer
>physical attacks. (I've always found physical attacks essentially
>silly, so that's good.)
Silly but effective, a heavy putting the boot in can seriously ruin your
day. I guess it comes down to not quite knowing if the game's a mecha
anime (and of course has physical attacks) or an essentially serious
setting...
>>I mean, I like the 3025 dying-technology setting; I just think FASA
>>grossly overdid it, in a way that requires overly vigorous suspension of
>>disbelief.
>robot game that doesn't blow all my plausibility fuses at once.
I think what I'm getting at (perhaps reiterating needlessly) is - the
existence and military effectiveness of giant robots in a mecha game gets,
to me, a free pass. I don't fret over making their effectiveness make
sense both because I can't and because I just accept it as a necessary
fudge.
It's everything else that needs looking at for suspension of disbelief
being stretched, and the "everything's dying but there still seem to be
lots of 'Mechs right now" aspect of 3025 is very prominent.
>>In the BattleTech universe, given we already have a magic FTL drive, I
>>don't see why it can't produce a bit more magic and give us reactionless
>>acceleration in-system...
>spaceship.
Hm, yes. It wants to turn into one of those convenient videogame drives
that goes faster the further you are from any massive body.
[I've snipped a discussion re plausible dropship drives here because it
all seems about right and I don't really have anything to add...]
Today is Second Leicesterday, September.
Tomorrow will be Second Brieday, September.
0 new messages