BSE-L Digest 37 From: kerry@freeside.fc.net (Kerry Harrison) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 16:37:42 +0000 Beyond the Stellar Empire Discussion List <BSE-L@consensus.com> BSE-L Digest 37 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Diagonal Movement by btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun) 2) Re: Diagonal Movement by Alan Hatcher <ZU02380@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU> 3) Diagonal Movement -Reply by PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL 4) Re: Space Combat -Reply by PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL 5) Re: Revised Space Combat: A s... by Cojran Michael <cojran@ucsub.Colorado.EDU> 6) Questions for RTG by PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL 7) Proposed Political Report by PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL 8) Re: Space Combat by rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) 9) Combat System by Charles Meredith <74214.2743@compuserve.com> 10) Outta touch GTT governor by Kevin Curnutt <76114.3576@compuserve.com> 11) Re: QSN Update by Henry4633@aol.com 12) Re: QSN Update by Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> 13) Re: Space Combat -Reply by RTGThad@aol.com 14) Re: Revised Space Combat: A s... by RTGThad@aol.com 15) Re: Questions for RTG by RTGThad@aol.com 16) Re: Space Combat by rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) 17) Re: Questions for RTG by RFN2@aol.com 18) Re: Proposed Political Report by RFN2@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:50:49 EST From: btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun) To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Diagonal Movement Message-ID: <199502271450.JAA161861@ns1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> Alan, While I'm not bothered by the idea of "paying" a fair movement cost for diagonals, 1.5 is TOO MUCH. What's the point of penalizing diagonal movement? Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Brad's Sig. File Here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 09:16:33 CST From: Alan Hatcher <ZU02380@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU> To: BSE Digest <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Re: Diagonal Movement Message-ID: <9502271521.AA01682@consensus.com> On Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:50:49 EST B T Braun said: >Alan, > >While I'm not bothered by the idea of "paying" a fair movement cost for >diagonals, 1.5 is TOO MUCH. What's the point of penalizing diagonal movement? > > >Brad Braun >btb4@lehigh.edu >///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I know this is probably a low priority thing, but I can't really see why getting rid of the multiplier would bother anyone except RTG maybe since it would allow more actions per turn. As far as simulating reality, I don't think that's a valid argument in a universe where planets don't move and mines never run out of ore. Also, on programming concerns, unless the code for BSE is ex- tremely obfuscated, this change should be very simple to implement. Alan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 10:20:03 -0400 From: PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL To: bse-l@consensus.com Subject: Diagonal Movement -Reply Message-ID: <sf51a765.020@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> Hear, Hear! No Mo' 1.5 multipliers! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 10:29:31 -0400 From: PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL To: bse-l@consensus.com Subject: Re: Space Combat -Reply Message-ID: <sf51a995.033@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> Thad, Will each ship continue to get its own firng stats (% hit, damage, etc)? Phil K. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:12:00 -0700 (MST) From: Cojran Michael <cojran@ucsub.Colorado.EDU> To: BSE-L@consensus.com Cc: Beyond the Stellar Empire Discussion List <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Re: Revised Space Combat: A s... Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950227090954.28202B-100000@ucsub.Colorado.EDU> If ya need any other FM's that you may be missing, I have a library of FM's dealing with mech infantry, light infantry, airborne and airmoble assault tactics. Zed Thunder AFT Sgt. at Arms On Sun, 26 Feb 1995 RTGThad@aol.com wrote: > Hi Steve: > > We have a HUGE libarary of military material, including a bunch of US Army > FMs <Russ was in the Army>, but I'd be happy to look em over. Just send em to > our POB and let us know when you want em back! > > > Thad > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 12:16:00 -0400 From: PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL To: bse-l@consensus.com Subject: Questions for RTG Message-ID: <sf51c28d.049@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> Thad and Pete: When you first came out with the proposed rules changes, there were a few items discussed that have probably changed. Could you please address the following: 1. WHEN will be the final date for deciding individual colony types (production, research, special production)? 2. WHEN are affiliation profiles due? 3. At one point, you talked about affiliations being allowed to design a freebie new ship type. Do you still intend to do that and, if so, when is the due date for the proposed new designs? 4. WHEN is the due date for deciding which affiliation tech (if any) we want to sell through the new training complexes? Thanks! Phil K. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 13:32:39 -0400 From: PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL To: bse-l@consensus.com Subject: Proposed Political Report Message-ID: <sf51d483.094@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> Since research will once again become important in BSE, and affiliations will probably assign political positions repsonsible for research, I'd like to propose the following new political report: PROOSED RESEARCH REPORT: For each affiliation colony: 1. Project Title (or none) 2. Project Type (Feasibility, Full, Investigative) 3. Project Class 4. Accumulated Research Points 5. # CRLs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 12:18:54 -0800 From: rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Space Combat Message-ID: <v0151010fab77e1399b6f@[192.65.129.70]> > Do we want realistic space combat, or flashy, exciting space-operatic >battles? The discussion so far has focused on realism, but I'm not so sure >realism should be such a large concern in BSE. It just isn't a realistic >universe out there. What's wrong with _Star Wars_-esque combat in such a >universe? Battle should be exciting and dramatic, with realism a secondary >concern. >(just an opinion, but let me know what you think) > >Richard Persky Realism? Who's talking about realism? I'm all for exciting space combat rules. I'd put pilots in space fighters, just for the color it would add to the game, no matter how unrealistic it might be. I just thought that the discussion was beginning to break down into an argument about apples and oranges. A lot of the proposals that I was making were based on limited sensor capabilities whereas Phil was assuming that you could see all the ships involved in a battle. So initially we were agreeing with each other, and then the arguments started to diverge. If you have total vision, then a lot of the flanking maneuvers and formation stuff I was talking about become pretty meaningless. To summarize my previous arguments, from a different viewpoint: One aspect that I would like to see in a combat system is a sort of scissor/rock/paper sort of thing where there is no sure way to win. The way I would implement that would be fleet tactics (which requires an assumption of limited sensor capability (possibly requiring ECM)). --Russ ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 95 16:50:36 EST From: Charles Meredith <74214.2743@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:BSE-L@consensus.com" <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Combat System Message-ID: <950227215035_74214.2743_BHT69-2@CompuServe.COM> >>>Ships will have two choices respective of detection of other ships....<<< Sensors should have ranges also. It could be a function of the number of sensors. Something like range = sqrt(#sensors on sensing ship) - sqrt(#jammers on target). In the case of a combine command/control of units in one square, combine the sensors prior to taking the squareroot. >>>Existing weapons will have settings allowing them to operate differently at different ranges <i.e. setting A for long range, setting B for medium range <the default> setting C for close range, etc.<<< Why not just have accuracy and dammage rolloffs. Each weapon should have its own advantage. Don't forget MINIMUM ranges as well -- if you want to mess with them. >>>Likewise, there will be different types of missiles and fighters....<<< I like the idea; but watch the number-of-items cap.... Can we get rid of the limit on the number of items and number of ship classes? >>>Each ship will get a battle report detailing what happened to that ship for the battle, you will not get a read out of exactly what happened to every other ship in the fleet <although you will get a general feel for the outcome of a fleet battle>.....<<< I would say, for reality and drama, each ship should get sensor reports on the combat comenserate with their sensor ability. Everything that happened to their ship in exacting detail; but not even nessecarily the name of the firing ship -- it could have been out of range.... ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 95 18:19:58 EST From: Kevin Curnutt <76114.3576@compuserve.com> To: <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Outta touch GTT governor Message-ID: <950227231957_76114.3576_HHB59-3@CompuServe.COM> Wayne, >>I appreciate your sticking up for the outta touch governor of the GTT colony, and can equally appreciate the reasons for that support. But, unless the governor is a quadrapalegic he can communicate, even if by snail mail. And even that can take only a week to ten days turnaround.<< Even those of us who are quadriplegics can communicate. <g> Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 20:43:39 -0500 From: Henry4633@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: QSN Update Message-ID: <950227204330_34259575@aol.com> >From desk:Vice Admiral QSN Lord Asakura Soteki I Lord Asakura Soteki take up this Honor of Defense of QSN Home Space in the Drell System .And I will Defense Drell System with my life if need be! I am order all armed war ships out of Drell System .I do not want to unintentionally attach any parties involved with harmless activity in Drell .So I ask all PD to tell all their starships captain not to come in Drell with arned war ships!!!! YES THAT GO'S FOR ALL IMP TO! BY ORDER: Lord Asakura soteki Vice Admiral QSN PETER A. HENRY 723 ARLINGTON AVE apt #6 PLAINFIEID ,NJ 07060 908-753-8231 AOL :Henry4633 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 22:12:18 -0600 (CST) From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: QSN Update Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9502272248.A11443-0100000@pentagon.io.com> On Mon, 27 Feb 1995 Henry4633@aol.com wrote: > I am order all armed war ships out of Drell System .I do not want to > unintentionally attach any parties involved with harmless activity in Drell > .So I ask all PD to tell all their starships captain > not to come in Drell with arned war ships!!!! YES THAT GO'S FOR > ALL IMP TO! The humans called Imperials let their subject races order them around query? K'zk Kasrith-kazereckii ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 00:08:23 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Space Combat -Reply Message-ID: <950228000821_34501682@aol.com> Yes, perhaps aided by command ship ratings. Thad ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 00:10:41 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Revised Space Combat: A s... Message-ID: <950228001040_34504131@aol.com> Sure, send whatever you think is relevant and we'll look it over and send em back. Thad ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 00:14:22 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Questions for RTG Message-ID: <950228001420_34507933@aol.com> Q: WHEN will be the final date for deciding individual colony types (production, research, special production)? A: 30 days from the time we make the announcement of when the new rules will take effect. 2. WHEN are affiliation profiles due? A: 60 days from the time we release the new rulebook. 3. At one point, you talked about affiliations being allowed to design a freebie new ship type. Do you still intend to do that and, if so, when is the due date for the proposed new designs? A: No, we are gonna doing something better, butcha gotta wait to find out what it is <g> 4. WHEN is the due date for deciding which affiliation tech (if any) we want to sell through the new training complexes? A: Undecided as to whether we are still gonna do this. Clear Space! Thad/RTG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 19:11:37 -0800 From: rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Space Combat Message-ID: <v01510100ab783a849512@[192.65.129.70]> Thad, You ain't talkin' 'bout no make-it-run-better tinkering here, are you? I mean, what you talkin' 'bout here is a whole lot different than it is/was, I ain't complainin', mind you. It just amazes me. When? (g) >Ships will have two choices respective of detection of other ships. One will >be dependent on their own sensors <i.e. their detection range will be >determined by the number and quality of functioning sensors on board> OR they >will bne dependent on a "command ship" The command ship will, presumably, This is all very interesting. It implies that the sensor rules will probably get more intricate, if you're talking about sensor quality. That might lead to stealth coatings on ships, especially fighters. Have you thought about passive versus active? Especially with a command ship, running passive sensors is a possibility. Did you ever read the rules to that BSE-clone that ran for 6 months down in Texas? If you bought a mark II sensor, say it was 20 MUs, it would be worth slightly more than 4 mark I sensors. That made bigger ships more valuable, but it also meant that more capability might disappear with a single hit. I have another question for you: Do you envision the possiblity of hidden movement because the sensor tech isn't perfect? Do you have a 10% chance of detecting a ship per round or a 90% chance? (I'm assuming that lock-on is easy after detection.) >Ships will fire on ships that are shooting at them regardless of other higher >priority targets that they may be chasing once a certain threshold is >reached. Good idea on paper. But it implies a tremendous flexibility in choosing targets. Will you be able to concentrate fire? Rather than pairing one-on-one, can you elect to train all your fire on one ship? It might be worthwhile if you were pretty sure that you could flee, and wanted to make the battle as painful as possible for the attacker. A lot of these targeting options may be too intricate to set up in advance, you know? Great ideas for a face-to-face resolution of battles, but difficult to anticipate a month or two ahead of time. Or do we all have to fly to Denver for battles? >Escorts will add point defense to escorted vessels... I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Right now, ships don't have a defense value to add to. (right?) Are escort ships going to make escorted ships harder to hit? Are you just talking about AA defense here? Or perhaps anti-missile screens? Or clouds of dust to disperse beam weapons? >Missiles will have fly time .... >...... >Existing weapons will have settings allowing them to operate differently at >different ranges <i.e. setting A for long range, setting B for medium range ><the default> setting C for close range, etc. This will allow us to >reasonably convert existing weapons to the new system <by using existing >ratings at the default settings and modulating them up and down the >scale>..... All this sounds intriguing. How you're going to make it work I have NO idea. >Likewise, there will be different types of missiles and fighters.... We're not going to be able to recognize space fighters when you're done with them, are we? That could be great. It sounds as if you're heading towards legitimate carrier-class vessels. Maybe vessels that look like cargo carriers now, but are outfitted just for space boats. Probably not very fast or maneuverable, or at least something to make them very attractive targets. Not just another ship class to throw in the main line of battle, but something that needs to be protected. Fighter vs. fighter combat, fighter-bomber, bomber class boats, all these could be a lot of fun. You could even give some designs G-ratings so they couldn't be based (or attack) at colonies (Hiport carrier bases?) >Each ship will get a battle report detailing what happened to that ship for >the battle, you will not get a read out of exactly what happened to every >other ship in the fleet <although you will get a general feel for the outcome >of a fleet battle>..... This is a great idea. The long-distance companies will love it. But it really adds to the simulation. A lot. ------- It looks as if you're giving us a wide-open playing field. But how do we program maneuvers before the battle is joined? How do you write orders for a battle when you don't know whether you're going to fight three ships or ten ships? Can you give us some hint as to how you expect ships to move during a battle and how that can be ordered on one page of battle orders? Have fun. But it really sounds exciting right now. I may have to get me a fleet and an enemy just to try it out. (g) Wait! Hold that FGZ/QSN war! --Russ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 01:37:09 -0500 From: RFN2@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Questions for RTG Message-ID: <950228013708_34573981@aol.com> Hi Pete and Thad; MAJOR QUESTION Can an out-of-touch poor slob like me get a copy of the proposed rule changes? Or is it already too late? Thanks Rob ps - I asked Kerry already and he just LOLed me. *&%#$KZK!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 01:37:53 -0500 From: RFN2@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Proposed Political Report Message-ID: <950228013752_34574445@aol.com> Thanks Phil I Second! Rob ------------------------------ End of BSE-L Digest 37 ********************** Up