Re: Sensors and Hardpoints

Scott (2G) Kellogg writes:
>
> Cynthia points out that it might be more realistic to require that large
> sensors require hardpoints for mounting.  Thus limiting the number of sensors
> that can be mounted on the hull.
>
> Rob and Steve are ready to throw out the hardpoint restrictions.
>
> (Sigh!)

No, you mistake my intent slightly, Scott.  I merely said that if we were
going to go for "realism" we should do both.

> Ok, philosophy time!  The following is my opinion on modifications to
> be made to Trav.
> *I* think that the technolgy depicted in Trav falls short of where things
> would actually be.  The difference bettween TL 15 and TL 8 is not the
> equivalent difference bettween TL 8 and TL 1.  Nope!  No way!

Marc Miller (RIP) stated in a seminar at Origins last year that the tech
levels were never especially intended to be "equally spaced" in any way.
So, don't worry about it.

> Thus, all the ships that have been designed are now totally useless.  A
> scout ship can no longer mount decent sensors *and* weapons?  No way!  Sorry!
> I won't agree to that one.  All the ships we have would have to be thrown out
> the window.  Furthermore, since GDW isn't likey to adopt a modification like
> that, all the designs they come out with in the future will be incompatible.
> As a designer I may be prolific, but I'm not THAT prolific.

Right.  I don't want to do that either, and I'm the only designer who is more
prolific than you are.  Consider my statement to have been something along the
lines of a rhetorical device.

> So, I will tend to disagree with notions that downgrade the performance of
> systems in the game.  If a system is more efficient than it might be in real
> life, I will be suspicious, but I will still tend to use it. (fusion rockets)
> But, if said system is less efficent than it should be I will change it.
> (Nulcear fission)

Well, obviously I agree about nuclear fission.  However, my problem with
fusion rockets as presented in COACC is that they are so good that there
is no reason that anyone would ever use thrusters.  So, along the lines of
'don't invalidate more work than you have to', fusion rockets need to be
refigured until they are in some sort of trade-off position with respect to
thrusters (and standard grav maneuver drives.)

>
> BTW, Steve, on agility:  check out the archives.  Rob Dean and I came up with
> a couple arguments on it that (to us) make sense) Essentually, our definition
> came back from high guard calculations and Rob's thrust based maneuver cal-
> culations. The upshot of it was that a ship will have an agility equivalent
> to the max acceleration of it's engines in G's.  By diverting power from the
> engines to weapons you decrease the acceleration you're pulling.

Actually Scott, I suspect that Steve is familiar with that.  What he has just
posted is a question as to whether or not _any_ agility should be figured
"realistically".  Having once done some calculations on how many maneuver Gs
would be required to alter the projected position of a ship by more than
one ship length, I tend to agree with him in principle.  Since ship combat
is in sad shape anyway, this is the sort of area in which I am a little more
comfortable considering changes.

Just as an arguing position, I would suggest that agility be reduced to a small
factor at long range only, and that _more_ emphasis should be placed on
computers, sensors, jammers, countermeasures and perhaps relative velocity in
working out combat.  In addition, we really need to start a thread concerning
missiles in combat, especially with respect to how they home and what effects
if any the firing computer should have on their peformance.

Rob Dean