BSE Digest v195 #250 From: kerry@freeside.fc.net (Kerry Harrison) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000 BSE Digest Wednesday, 12 July 1995 Volume 195 : Number 250 Welcome to the BSE Digest, the place to discuss all the myriad aspects of life Beyond the Stellar Empire with other denizens of the Greater Periphery. In this issue: + Re: BSE: Week 25 Adjustments + Re: BSE: Combat System + Re: BSE: BSE-PFM Foolishness + Re: BSE: Re: BSE Digest V195 #244 + Re: BSE: BSE-PFM Foolishness + Re: BSE: BSE-PFM Foolishness + Re: BSE: Production Carryover + Re: BSE: KZK Metamorphosis + Re: BSE: GPI query + Re: BSE: space combat + Re: BSE: Combat System + Re: BSE: GPI query + Re: BSE: Combat System + Ship Scrapping/Hulls + BSE: IND in TH + Re: BSE: Imperial...What's? + Re: BSE: Imperial...What's? + Re: BSE: Imperial...What's? + BSE: Imperial...What's? + Re: BSE: Imperial...What's? See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the bse-list and bse-digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 12:22:17 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: Week 25 Adjustments Steve, It looks like the only smart way to set up a colony will be to start it as a "produciton" type, which you can do for free. You'll neeed but 8 factories then. Using MYR ships (1K cargo), you should be able to set up an 8 factory DC colony without much difficulty. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 12:17:37 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: Combat System >>> >>>If ships took longer to make, I'd bet the Ens Unnamed syndrome would end >>>very quickly. >>> This entire discussion disturbs me. Ships in BSE are too small, they have not grown at the rate of colonies. When ships (individually) were significant, they did take forever to build. Adding artificial limits isn't the answer - it's bigger ships. This discussion is rather like assuming that it'd take months for a major shipyard yo build a bayliner. Consider the last nine years: Colonies have gone through 6 doublings sine then. A 50 factory colony in '86 (which was considered quite substantial then) was being serviced by ships like the HF and defended by proud LCs, or ships of about 50 hulls (also quite substantial then). For the 50 factory colony to build & equip a 50 hull ship would take almost 2 months - a substantial investment of time, money and materials. This was for a good sized colony (huge, really) to build a good, useful ship. Ratchet ahead 9 years: The 50 factory colony is now potentially 3200 factories, simply by being maintained and allowed to grow. While there may be fewer 3200 factory colonies today than 50 in '86, it's not by much. In fact, when you consider that some of the 50s "bud off" smaller colonies, they could be thought to represent 3200 factory conglomerates. Certainly, this reflects the gorwth of colonist numbers in the game, and thus the scale at which the game is currently set. What has happened to ships during this time? Ship sizes have about tripled to a "good" ship being about 150 hulls. The 3200 factory colony can build about 5.4 of these ships a WEEK, or about 35 in the time required for it to build a 50 hull ship back in '86. These are the consequences of a poorly planned game that allows one factor of a system grow to be 64 times it's former size, while another interdependent potion only triples. Today, ships should be about 3,000 hulls. To keep up with colonies, they would have to be 6,000 around 1/1/97. Such ships would be difficult, and time consuming to build. You'd have fewer of them. They'd mean a lot, but they could DO a lot. The real problem is the nonsense of "BSE fees haven't gone up in more than a decade." They really have, in real terms: You have to run 20 MM today to have the impact of a single HF 10 years ago. That's rampant inflation, particularly when you consider that there were fleet turns in '86. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 12:35:10 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: BSE-PFM Foolishness J. Slater, It all depends on with whom you deal. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 12:29:16 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: Re: BSE Digest V195 #244 >Neil, > >If you scrap a War Galley (6-6-6), the rules say that you'll get 80% of the >hulls back, rounded down...so that's 80% times 6, or 4 Command Hulls, and >then 4 Main and 4 Engine hulls. > >Pete > > Seems like "nasty math" to me. Why lose 2.4 hulls (.8X3)? If nothing else, he ought to be entitled to them as 2 main hulls (small, more "general" hulls). The offcial method of calculation seems unnecessarily harsh. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 12:32:34 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: BSE-PFM Foolishness Don, Well said! Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 12:43:36 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: BSE-PFM Foolishness >After reading the PFM profile I highly doubt that the PFM player was >"Absolutely, unequivocably out of character:". If you disagree with me I >would like to point you to the PFM Profile, Affiliation Description, second Paul E.: You've misquoted Don. While he was questioning the PFM role-playing, the quote you selected referred to DON'S comments. In other words, he wiched to make it quite certain that everyone understood that his message was OOC and not from one of his characters. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 13:09:11 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: Production Carryover Alan, First off, I don't think the new produciton procedure was intentional, it just worked out that way. For disadvantage you can bring up for the new system, I can mention an advantage. Consider this: You have a "small" 20 factory colony for which you've miscalculated production/morale. Using the old system, you might have to resort to an "EP" order to clear away the problem. Under the new system, untooling a 5 factories for a week would cause the queue to drop through to the next (morale producing) item on the list, solving the problem with a minimum of wasted production. I realize that this is something that doesn't happen too often, but then again, it probably happens more often than you set up a new colony. If your production "falls all the way through": You produce *. It could be worse. Speaking as someone who's set up a colony 2 140 Tu truns away from his nearest supply of goods using a MF, the new rules aren't that tough. I can, however, recognize that newbies who've never played under the old rules might have a problem accepting with the new challenges. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 13:19:09 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: KZK Metamorphosis Geoff, OK - are you guys still going to buy 12K robotic sheep from me as per my agreement with Kerry? If so, they're ready. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 13:21:23 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: GPI query >Does anybody happen to know if GPI's are "permanent", or do they get used >up when you do a GPI scan? > >Thanks in advance... > >Tony B. > >** My hovercraft is full of eels! ** > Yep, I happen to know. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: scragg@infi.net (Scragg) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 14:42:50 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: space combat >Joe, > >It absolutely makes sense. Ten years ago, a HF stocked with space fighters >was considered a quite nasty warship indeed. You need a large cargo capacity, >but not much in the way of COM - current "cargo" ships fit the bill. As to >the "gravity effects", I'll not lecture you in physics (as it'd undoubtably be >entirely wasted), but there's plenty of reason to argue that a space fighters >could end up using MORE room to bleed off dV, particularly if they didn't want >to usee mass to do it. > >Be seeing you, > >Brad Braun >btb4@lehigh.edu >///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ > > USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > Ok, I know this will be hard but try employing common sense. You take a cargo carrier, give it carrier speciality then try and stop it. Get the point? If you allow armed cargo ships (even if they are just fighters) the game is going to get all wacked up. ------------------------------ From: scragg@infi.net (Scragg) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: Combat System >This entire discussion disturbs me. Ships in BSE are too small, they have not >grown at the rate of colonies. When ships (individually) were significant, >they did take forever to build. Adding artificial limits isn't the answer - >it's bigger ships. This discussion is rather like assuming that it'd take >months for a major shipyard yo build a bayliner. > This argument is one of the most baseless I've seen in BSE. Why should ship technology automatically improve as colonies get bigger? Colony govenors don't need to research new ways of managing their larger colony, they just pull stuff out of the groud and buuld stuff with it. The colonist breed just fine on their own (at a greatly inflated rate compared to real humens I may add) again with no research etc... Lets talk about ships. Yes they got three times bigger but the reason that happened was because A... er that other compnay did away with fleet turns. They made one ship have the same power as three or four. Many groups have abilities that allow ships to carry more cargo, stargates are all over the place (even though many are currently not working), several groups can jump in 10 TU's. If your not happy with the amount of stuff you can haul RESEARCH a way to haul more stuff. Spend the time and materials and maybe you will become king Trucker Weenie vs King Whiner. ------------------------------ From: tandmb@sierra.net (Tony & Marcia Baldacci) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 13:06:51 -0700 Subject: Re: BSE: GPI query >Yep, I happen to know. >Be seeing you, <ooc> Thanks awfully, Brad. (sheesh) And thanks to the two or three HELPFUL people who sent a useful reply...(grin) ** My hovercraft is full of eels! ** ------------------------------ From: ac217@detroit.freenet.org (Chip Charnley) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 18:13:41 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: Combat System Brad, I won't try to dispute your numbers and theory for the most part. It is certainly one way of looking at things. What I wll dispute is the following claim: >A 50 factory colony in '86 (which was considered quite substantial >then) was being serviced by ships like the HF and defended by proud LCs, or >ships of about 50 hulls (also quite substantial then). I don't know where you were playing in 86 but that was AFTER the CPR revolt. Of the 5 colonies I personally controlled at the time, 4 were > 100 factories, 2 were > 150. Of the other 6 main colonies that I am aware of in the CPR, 4 were > 100 2 > 150 and 1 > 250. I don't think that the CPR was the exception in this. I would not have considered anything less than 100 factories substantial. You are right about being serviced by HF's but there were a LOT of CA's flying around by 86. Chip Charnley (who finally quit in 86) ------------------------------ From: chazz@cais.cais.com (Charles Meredith) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 19:23:42 -0400 Subject: Ship Scrapping/Hulls >>Neil, >> >>If you scrap a War Galley (6-6-6), the rules say that you'll get 80% of the >>hulls back, rounded down...so that's 80% times 6, or 4 Command Hulls, and >>then 4 Main and 4 Engine hulls. >> >>Pete >> >> >Seems like "nasty math" to me. Why lose 2.4 hulls (.8X3)? If nothing else, >he ought to be entitled to them as 2 main hulls (small, more "general" hulls). >The offcial method of calculation seems unnecessarily harsh. Pete, How about a carryover scheme that would progress from command to engine to main type hulls. For example, when scrapping a WG gets 4 command hulls (80% of 6 round down), 5 Engine hulls (calced as (80% of 6) + remainder of Command hulls (.8) then round down), and 5 Main hulls (80% * 6 + .6 round down). Of course you could do it the way it was done at one time before --0% back.... ------------------------------ From: StephMarte@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:12:30 -0400 Subject: BSE: IND in TH NOTICE: With the recent attempt of IND (QSN) ships to build a stargate in Lemke, all WCE warships and colonies are targeting IND. If you are IND and intend of staying alive in the Upper Transhole, you'd better notify us of your presence ASAP. Sir Arthur Curry WCE Secretary For War ------------------------------ From: StephMarte@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:17:41 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: Imperial...What's? Lord Den of Earth, I agree with your sentiments. It's not like the Imperials have video tape of the FGZ handing slush fund payments to the RIP, or printed scans of FGZ ships sitting in a RIP starport. <in other words, no "in game" documentation> All they have is what they've read here. I was under the impression what is printed here cannot be used to post someone, so how can the ISP use such data to revoke your VISA? Arthur ------------------------------ From: StephMarte@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:17:43 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: Imperial...What's? >Speaking as a member of one of the "companies", actively >encouraging pirates to operate in Imperial space, near our >assets, is worse than dishonorable, it is a down right threat >to our existence. By your irresponsible act, you loosed a >weapon that you barely control. Noa, The FGZ hardly set the RIP loose. The RIP have been operating in the Periphery for over 10 years - and will continue to do so, without FGZ support. Why not look at it this way: if the FGZ are not urging the RIP to take Quman pelts, the RIP are free to pick their own targets, and normally the IMP and EEM are on the top of their hit parade. Indirectly the FGZ have done you a service. They've directed the RIP's energies away from the Imperials and the chartered affiliations and directed them toward Drell, a system where there is little chance of the RIP harming human life. Arthur ------------------------------ From: LUDENDORF@delphi.com Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 02:11:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: BSE: Imperial...What's? > All they have is what they've read here. I was under > the impression what is printed here cannot be used > to post someone, so how can the ISP use such data > to revoke your VISA? Sir Curry, Lord Den of Earth publicly admitted guilt. That's more that suffiecient evidence. PD von Ludendorf <OOC:> Steve M, Jack wrote his message I.C.... that's why it was usable. I had hoped he would've taken the hint, when I gave him the chance to rescind what he had said, by having my Hoffa character create an area of doubt, then asking him "straight up" if he did it. If he had kept quiet or denied it, the matter would've been closed. Steve M. <the other one> ------------------------------ From: LUDENDORF@delphi.com Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 02:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: BSE: Imperial...What's? > Was I not given your Word that that "Drell was free game..." You did not set > any limits on the FGZ's actions... Drell *WAS* open territory for the FGZ. In the QSN-FGZ war, the QSN had free reign to strike into the heart of FGZ-TH territory. The FGZ deserved the equal right to strike into QSN territory. This was given to you. The FGZ were permitted to whatever means they felt necessary to accomplish their objectives, just as the QSN would use against the FGZ. However, I think that perhaps, not being human, you may not be entirely familiar with the law in question here, under which I was forced to revoke the FGZ visa. Allow me to enlighten you: IMP Law #7: It is illegal to engage in trade with members of groups which engage in anti-Imperial activities. <def: trade = exchange of goods, services, or monies for goods, services or monies> When you publicly admitted that you had hired the RIP to attack, you were admitting guilt in the violation of the above law. When my APD asked you again, he was offering you the opportunity to refute the earlier claim. I respect your honesty very much, and because of all the work we've both done to improve IMP-FGZ relations, I went as light as possible on the FGZ. Had it been FGZ-TH positions involved in the attack, this situation would never have arisen (and the QSN Blue Whale would also not exist today). I hope that you consider these words carefully, with all their implecations, and also remember that while the IMP must remain neutral in this nonsensical war, I personally believe that in the incident claimed as that which provoked it (the FGZ attack on the 2 QSN SOL's in FGZ territory) I feel that the FGZ were justified and within their rights to police their own territory. It is my hope that when this foolishness is over with, that the FGZ & IMP can resume the long walk down the road to peace. PD von Ludendorf > ooc- > not* consider hiring the RIP to attack one ship...that they would have > attacked anyway...to be an insult to anyone, accept of coarse, the "Target". I never said it was an insult. That was someone else. Personally, as a player (and since this is ooc) if our situation was reversed, I probably would've same the same thing..... except I wouldn't have admitted it. Steve ------------------------------ From: ac217@detroit.freenet.org (Chip Charnley) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 07:37:48 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: Imperial...What's? At 11:17 PM 7/11/95 -0400, bse-list@fc.net wrote: >Lord Den of Earth, > > I agree with your sentiments. It's not like the Imperials >have video tape of the FGZ handing slush fund payments >to the RIP, or printed scans of FGZ ships sitting in a >RIP starport. <in other words, no "in game" >documentation> > All they have is what they've read here. I was under >the impression what is printed here cannot be used >to post someone, so how can the ISP use such data >to revoke your VISA? > > Arthur > Without comment on the specific situation, I would like it noted that transmissions that are clearly IN CHARACTER have been useable for postong positions since 184 when the SSL Diamond Eyes sent messages to me and a couple of others boasting of bombarding the entrnace to T-SNIT while it was still unlaunched on Dhiv's Find. This resulted in the premature launch of T-Snit and the destruction of the planet! There may have been other cases prior to this one but I know of this one for certain and others after this one. Chip Charnley ------------------------------ End of BSE Digest V195 #250 *************************** BSE Digest - All items Copyright (c) 1995, by their respective authors, permission is granted to redistribute as long as proper credit is given. To subscribe to BSE Digest, send the command: + subscribe bse-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@fc.net". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "bse@domain.net": + subscribe bse-digest bse@domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "bse-digest" in the commands above with "bse-list". An archive of BSE Digest back issues are available via anonymous ftp from <ftp://ftp.comland.com/pub/BSE/Digests>. Also there is a BSE Homepage on the World Wide Web at <http://www.comland.com/~kerry/BSE.html>. Up