A MASSIVE MISSIVE FROM WILDSTAR
Hi again, time for another long-winded response (luckily, I only get a chance
to compose these things on the weekends). Again, it's long, because I am
trying to cover most of the topics mentioned during the last week or so.
Here goes!
CAUTION: FALLING ROCK ZONE
The October/November issue of Air&Space Smithsonian has an interesting article
by Gerrit L. Vershuur entitled "This Target Earth". He reports on the recent
International Conference on Near-Earth Asteroids; and the article has some
bearing on a recent TML discussion.
According to Steve Ostro of JPL, an asteroid large enough (about 50 feet
accross, or larger) to produce a nuclear-sized blast passes within the
Moon's orbit once every several hours.
Eugene Shoemaker of the US Geological Survey estimates the chance that a
half-mile-wide object will strike the Earth within the next 100 years at one
in a thousand. The odds are the same that an object half that size will
hit within 25 years.
David Morrison of NASA provided a rule of thumb for calculating the energy
of an asteroid impact. The energy of an Asteroid striking the Earth at a
typical speed of 24,000 miles per hour is 50 times greater than that produced
by an equivalent amount of TNT. A six-mile-wide object (such as the one
believed to have triggered the K-T extinction) would strike with the force
of a 100 million megaton TNT explosion (or about 10,000 times the the combined
destructive power of the world's nuclear arsenals).
The Tunguska blast has been estimated at 10 to 30 megatons, and could have
been caused by about half a million tons of ice and rock. A collision
of that magnitude in an urban location today could kill up to 330,000 people.
FALLING ROCKS IN MEGATRAVELLER
A strike cruiser with empty 100-ton bays could cary a 1350-kiloliter
chunk of asteroidal material in each one. Assuming that asteroidal rock
is similar to granite, it would mass 2770kg per cubic meter, or 1870 metric
tons. On impact, each one would do about the same damage as 186.98 kilotons
of TNT (note that I am using metric tons here). If the deadfall ordinance
were constructed of cast iron, it would mass 7200kg/m3, and pack a 0.486
megaton wallop.
A cruiser designed to carry deadfall ordinance in support of planetary
invasions could be designed to transport 25 such rocks in 100 ton bays. A
50,000 ton cruiser would still have plenty of hardpoints left over for
adequate conventional armament. A typical mission profile would have the
ship collect suitable rocks or deadfall bombs, and make an in-system jump
to the release point. With proper navigation, the velocity vector of the
ship and rocks can be in opposition to that of the planet, resulting in
the necessicary velocity without undue maneuvering. The ship then performs
final course corrections, releases the deadfall ordinance, and jumps away
before it passes within the 100-diameter limit.
A laser-armed ship could locate suitable rocks (just about any type would
do, but the denser the better; a 1350 cubic meter chunk of water ice would
have the same destructive power as 67.5 kilotons of TNT). Laser weapons
would then be used to cut the rocks to the correct shape for the bays.
Cast iron deadfall bombs could be manufactured relatively easily in any belt
with a sufficient supply of nickel-iron asteroids. Basic microgravity
smelting and casting could create a large quantity of bombs cheaply.
Cheap and destructive. Brings new meaning to the term "Iron Bomb".
ALSO FROM AIR&SPACE
Completely off the subject, but someone may be interested and want to take
advantage of this information. General Chuck Yeager, USAF (Ret) will give
his annual General Electric Aviation Lecture at the Langley Theater in
the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum on Thursday, October 17th.
Call the Smithsonian Information line at [phone removed] for more information.
It's free.
COMPUTER-AIDED GAMING (THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY)
I have a friend (and avid gamer of all types) who insists that any computer
added to a role-playing session will ruin the session for everyone. He
absolutely refuses to have anything to do with a game session which involves
a computer. On the other hand, he uses a computer himself in preparation
for his games.
He bases his opinion on the observation that most of the people he knows
will tend to ignore the progress of the game (and also not properly
role-play their characters) while they play with the nifty new toy.
My general feeling is that almost any computer program is going to cause
at least as much work for the referee as it eliminates; its just a question
of what kind of work is easiest for the referee and players to handle in
the course of the game. The "toy effect" will probably wear off after
everyone has had a chance to play with the computer for a couple of hours.
Once the thing stops being a novelty (say after a couple of sessions), then
everyone can get on with the game, and use it as an information resource.
COMPUTER AIDED ROLE-PLAYING
Personally, I would want a number of different things in a computer-based
role-playing game aid. For the players I would want a database-like
program which could dispense library data and other information (much like
the kinds of things that are in the Imperial Encyclopedia). Writing such
a program would not be hard -- the main trouble is in the massive amount
of data entry which would be necessacary in order for it to really take
the burden off of the referee. The database would, of course, have to be
amenable to modifications by the referee. Probably this would work by
appplying some kind of pre-generated (by the referee, and perhaps on a
different system) update file before each session).
As a referee I would want a program which could generate minor NPC's to
order. For example, I might tell it that I wanted a Navy Captian and a
pair of Marine guards. With a little more data about the minor NPC's
available at no extra referee cost, I could add that much more detail
to the game. Similarly, a program wich could whip up various kinds of
encounters would be nice.
The only computerized referee aids that I normally use are stored in my
programmable calculator (HP-41CV). I have a number of dice simulations
assigned to user-programmable keys. When I have to roll a d26, I just type
26 and hit the 1dX key. Similarly, I have all of the standard kinds of
polyhedral dice attached to other keys. I also have a program which
generates quick UPP stats for NPC's.
NOT THE COMPUTER LAB
Rob Miracle writes ...
>The real drawback to CARPs (Did I just create a nifty new acronym?) is the
>portability of the hardware. I don't know of any one with a 10 seat computer
>lab with a multi-user computer at home for this (When I win the lottery . . .)
Well, it depends on what kind of hardware you want to write for. I happen to
have three PDP-11's sitting around here (an 11/44, and 11/34, and an 11/23)
in operable condition. The 11/23 has 8 serial ports, and cards can
be installed in the 11/44 to support over 24 users. According to the DEC
literature I have, MUMPS, RSTS/E, or IAS on a midrange PDP-11 (like the 44)
can support this many users. At last count, we had more than a dozen
termials or small computers here with compatible serial ports. And that's
not counting the three printing terminals or the Northstar MP/M box.
Hmmm ... YES! MegaTraveller on a ASR-33!
>tend to vary the location of where we play from week to week so lugging a big
>AT case around isn't practical either. It is hard to justify $2500 for a
>laptop just to game with. Once these problems are solved, then CARPs can
>become useful tools.
Give the technology another 5 years or so.
THE FRIGATES
Yes, more cost effective ships can be built. Large ships are not cost
effective in combat for one major reason: a single spinal meson hit (say of
about UCP Factor G or better) which penetrates will knock out almost any
ship, unless it has multiple redundant backups of almost everything. With
a +6 DM on the Interior Explosion damage table, 6 rolls usually generate a
"Mission Kill": a ship so badly damaged that it is no longer capable of
fufilling its mission. (The expected value of 6 rolls is 1.00 Critical,
0.67 Fuel Tanks Shattered, Sensors-2.83, Jump-1.67, PowerPlant-1.33,
Crew-0.50, and Computer-0.33).
The original reason I posted the designs was to try and get some feedback
from TML on the accuracy of the spreadsheet I used to create them. Has
anyone found any impossibilities or strange numbers?
STARSHIP DESIGN AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS
I hadn't given the cost effectiveness of meson screens much thought; I
simply assumed that in any reasonable game, the costs of a defense (price,
mass, volume, and power consumption) approximately balance the utility (in
terms of defensive effectiveness). I am guilty of forgetting that
MegaTraveller is not a reasonable game.
On the other hand, the only way to improve the DefDM of the frigate designs
is to reduce them to less than 10,000 dispacement tons; this may not be
possible without sacrificing all of the armor, screens, secondary weapons,
and reducing the meson gun to a factor J. OK, so be it.
So, let's analyse a meson screen. Let's start from the combat system's tasks.
In order for a ship to be hit with a meson gun, the weapon must first hit, and
then penetrate two possible defenses (meson screen and configuration). I will
take a look at two ships, both assumed to be identical, except that the smaller
one has no screens, armor, secondary weapons, and has a factor J spinal mount.
The analysis will be for both ships, with [information about the small ship
appearing in brackets, like this]. Both ships have Mod-9/Fib computers, 6G
agility 6 maneuver drives, and are at TL 15.
To Hit: Difficult, OFF=(Computer Size + Weapon "To Hit" DM), DEF=DefDM
With a UCP T [J] Meson Gun, we have OFF=+18, and DEF=-14 [-15] for a net DM of
+4 [+3]; the weapon will hit on a roll of 7+ [8+], or about 58% [42%].
To Penetrate: Difficult, OFF=(Computer Size + "To Pen" DM), DEF=Computer Size
With a UCP 9 Meson Screen against a factor T [J] weapon, we have DMs of
OFF=+15 [+11], and DEF=-9 for a net DM of +6 [+2]; the weapon will penetrate
on a roll of 5+ [9+], or about 83% [28%]. Of course, a ship with no Meson
Screen gets no roll at all.
For kicks, let's consider configuration. The best has a "To Pen" DM of +6
[+3], while the worst has +11; a Needle/Wedge has +8 [+5]. The penetration
rolls are 5+ [8+] for the best, 0+ for the worst, and 3+ [6+] for a
Needle/Wedge. The penetration probabilities are 83% [28%] at best, 100% at
worst, and 97% [72%] for the Needle/Wedge.
HYPOTHETICAL COMBAT
OK, what do those numbers mean? Let's now consider a hypothetical combat
between these two ships. For the small ship targetting the larger (Factor J
Meson Gun against a DefDM of -14, Factor 9 Meson Screen, and Needle/Wedge
configuration). 58% of the shots hit; of those, 28% penetrate the screen, and
finally, 72% of the remainder penetrate the configuration. The net result is
that 11.7% of the shots fired actually damage the target. The return fire
(Factor T meson gun against a DefDM of -15 and a Needle/Wedge configuraton)
hits 42% of the time, and 97% of those penetrate the configuration. Of the
shots fired, 40.7% hit and penetrate.
This means that simply to achieve the same number of hits, the small vessels
must outnumber the larger ones by 3.48 to 1 (not unreasonable, considering
that the smaller ships are about one tenth the size of the large ones, and
probably achieve cost savings to match).
In the case of the frigates (or other "capital" ships), simply achieving an
equal number of hits is not enough. A Factor J hit on a 95,000 ton hull
generates 10 interior explosions, but the frigates mount a Factor 4 black
globe screen, which would reduce the damage to 2 interior explosions, and
those at a net -2 on the table. The frigate should be able to absorb an
average of 10 such hits before a "mission kill" occurrs. On the other hand,
a Factor T hit on a 10,0000 ton hull generates 8 critical hits and 19 interior
explosions. With the fragate's globe screen up, the damage is reduced to
11 interior explosions, each at a net -2 DM. Two hits will kill the ship.
The end result is that the group of smaller ships much acheive approximately
a 5 to 1 hit ratio over the frigate. This could be achieved by outnumbering
the large ship by about 19 to 1. Depending on the exact design of the small
ships, this may or may not be possible. This week's vehicle design challenge
is to come up with a ship under 10,000 tons which costs less than
MCr 4,178.1033 in quantity and mounts a Factor J Meson Gun and
delivers a DefDM of -15, when constructed at TL15.
A more efficient design for the smaller ships (using a type 7USL hull,
for example) may also help. The new hit percentage by the frigate against the
smaller vessel becomes 34.9%. This alters the hit ratio to 2.98 to 1, and the
damage exchange ratio becomes about 15 to 1.
CONCLUSION
A Meson screen is an effective defense against the smaller classes of Meson
Gun; a Factor 9 screen makes a vessel effectively immune to secondary meson
weapons (Factor B or less). It is also an effective defense against weapons
(typically Factor C through M) on second-rate ships such as a hypothetical
sub-10,000 ton vessels. It is not a very effective defense agains the main
guns (factors N through Z) of first-rate capital ships; but then again,
nothing else is either, and a weak defense is better than none.
For pure combat efficency, a single-purpose, single-weapon design should
be able to defeat a much larger, general purpose vessel. This was true in
WWII when a PT boat could (if it was lucky) dispatch an enemy cruiser, and
it is true now (consider an Exocet or Harpoon armed PHM) and it will
undoubetdly be true in the future. But larger general-purpose ships will
still be built.
SIMPLIFYING STARSHIP COMBAT
George William Herbert [email removed] writes
>I realize that this is a really nasty and evil thing to do, especially
>since everyon's off on another "let's make it more realistic" bent, but I've
>seen enough of the mid to large scale starship combat that IMHO it's time
>to radically simplify it.
>What are people's ideas about cutting the hay out of MT starship combat?
>I don't want to ignore the reality factor, and I've got some vague ideas
>myself, but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks also.
Take a long, hard look at Harpoon. The actual damage system is quite
simple; all of the complexity of the game is in the sensors and deals with
the problem of locating your enemy. Although Harpoon is by no means a
simple game, it provides suprisingly realistic results for the size of the
rulebook. I haven't seen Captain's Edition Harpoon, which is supposed to
be an even simpler version.
General Suggestions for improving starship combat:
1) Change the time scale. Starship combat happens incredibly slowly; a
modern Mk41 VLS (US Navy vertical launch missile system) can fire off
all 90 of its SM2 missiles in about a minute and a half. Once firing starts,
a Harpoon combat that lasts 20 minutes (40 turns) is unusual; I've never
had one. In comparison, the MegaTraveller spaceship combat turn is 20
minutes long. Battles last for hours, and a TL15 missile bay has a ROF of 2,
or 50 missiles in two and a half minutes (1/3 the speed of a Mk41). Consider
time scales of 6 seconds, 1 minute, or (at most) 10 minutes; the same
scales used by the other MegaTraveller combat systems.
2) Bring back vector movement (the "circling in a hex" really bugs me).
3) The whole fire resolution system needs work. I'd like to see really
big ships become more combat effective.
4) Take a look at old Book 2. Talk about simplified.
HARDPOINTS and HULL DESIGN
There has been considerable discussion about hardpoint restrictions and vessel
construction. A couple of points are probably worth discussing. I have long
felt that the limitations on mounting of spaceship weapons are essentially
arbitrary. Worth considering is the "40% rule" : That no more than 40% of
the ship's volume be allocated to movable (as opposed to fixed) weapons
mounts. In other words, one turret with 40% of the volume, or 40 turrets
of 1% volume each. In addition each weapon mount (movable or not) would
require a hardpoint - a specially designed location on the hull which can
accept a weapon installation. The cost, mass, and waste volume of the hull
should be derived from a formua similar to the following:
Value = Base * MaxAccel * (K1 * SQRT(Volume) + K2 * Hardpoints)
Where Value is the value (Cost, Mass, or Waste Volume) to be determined,
MaxAccel is the maximum accelleration the hull can withstand, K1 and K2 are
a constants unique to the selected configuration and streamlining, Volume
is the total volume enclosed by the hull, and Hardpoints is total volume of
weapons for which hardpoints are to be included.
NOBLE PLAYER CHARACTERS
One of my (few) hard-and-fast rules is that a player character cannot begin
play as a ruling noble. If someone generates a character with a high social
standing, fine; I sit down with the player and make it quite clear what he
or she can and can't do. Typically, the caracter is a junior (in terms of
proximity to ruling power) member of an important family.
Someone with a SOC of F should be in the same position of relative advantage
as someone with a STR or DEX of F. It's relatively rare to generate, and can
make for some interesting role-playing.
One of the more memorable in recent games has been one Ezekial "Zeke"
VonMeezer, the youger son of Baron Johann VonMeezer (a noble of some
importance in the Marches). The Baron still percieves Zeke as the headstrong,
irresponsible teenager who left the household twelve years ago to enlist in the
IISS (very much against his father's wishes) instead of following the family
tradition in his older brother's footsteps (first college; then a job in one of
the family businesses, to learn decision making; then a stint as manager at one
of the estates, to learn responsibility; then ...)
'Nuff Said!
Wildstar
"Earth ... everything about it is so dear to me ..." --- Admiral Juzo Okita
Space Cruiser Yamato
(better know in the US as Captain Avatar of the Argo [Star Blazers])