Re: (2731) Re: Revised Agility Calculation Formula

Adrian Hurt writes:

> > Ok, High Guard functioned like this:  A ship with power plant-2 and
> > maneuver drive-2 automatically becomes agility=2.
>
> Only if it has no energy-consuming weapons, screens or computer (i.e.
> only missile and sandcaster armament, computer Model 2 or less, no
> screens except a black globe).

Your are, of course, correct, but I didn't want to make the explanation
any more longwinded than necessary.

> >						    In order to have
> > a functioning maneuver drive, you had to have a power plant factor
> > equal to the maneuver drive ...
>
> At least equal to the manoeuvre drive.  The power plant rating could be
> greater than the manouvre drive rating, so you could use weapons, screens,
> computer and manoeuvre drive.

See above. (-8

> > Rationalization:  The 6G ship's power plant is being drained away
> > from the maneuver drive and it is not putting out 6-G's, it is putting
> > out only 1G.
>
> Correct, unless the 6G ship uses its emergency agility of 6G (and has a large
> enough power plant to supply its 6G manoeuvre drive).
>
> > In view of the MegaTrav design rules this does not translate unless
> > we do the following:
> >
> > 	(Power required for maneuver drive + "excess" power)
> > Agility=--------------------------------------------------- * 5.4
> > 			Unloaded Weight
>
> I'd substitute "Power available for manoeuvre drive" for the entire top line.
> Power available for manoeuvre drive = output of power plant - power used by
> other things.  This is presumably what the MT manual means by "excess power".
> In fact, this is precisely what it means. In my manual, it says "Excess power
> output is the power left over from the power plant after all of the craft's
> other components have been powered". This is a big surprise--something in the
> MT Referee's manual does make sense! :-)

While I agree with you, of course, it is not so obvious as you think it is, at
least to several other eminent members of this group with whom I have had this
discussion.  As a result, I thought it best to spell it out.

> > Agility may not exceed maneuver drive rating.
> > (No more agility=6 1-G drive ships...)
>
> Perhaps they should have stated that explicitly.  This was certainly the case
> in High Guard.

Ah! But they didn't, because they didn't intend for it to be the same.  That's
why we've got Joe Fugate explaining that the agility rating is your ability
to 'alter your heading' for pity's sake, rather than the ability to alter
your maneuver vector.  Since you can rotate all you want (with three degrees
of freedom, no less) and still end up presenting a 'ballistic' rather than
a maneuvering target, I reject this view utterly.

> > Note that if a ship is powering weapons the "excess" power can be negative
> > thus subtracting from the ship's ability to maneuver.  This is what Rob
> > refers to as "Double Dipping".
>
> Not by the above definition.  Excess power = power output - power used by
> systems other than manoeuvre drive.  If this is negative, you need a bigger
> power plant or smaller systems.  If it is zero, the ship's agility is zero.

I use this terminology to make it explicit that I mean exactly what High
Guard meant, as opposed to certain folks around here (-8, who feel that
the power used _by the drive_ should be included, leaving excess power as
anything over and above that normally used by the drive (overloading!).


The whole question of "What is agility?" is tied in pretty closely with the
question of whether or not the combat system is rational as it now stands
(give or take a little).  If we view ships as 'hard to hit', then it would
make sense to spray your weapons all over their potential positions, which
is why a 30 laser battery does the same damage as a 1 laser battery, if
both manage to hit.  Now, if ships are spraying automatic weapons fire (-8
all over, then to be hard to hit, you obviously must need to make a substantive
change in your projected position, which means using the maneuver drive
to accelerate rather than just 'dodging' a little bit in place.  Does that make
any sense to anyone?

Rob Dean