BSE Digest V1 #19 From: kerry@io.com (Kerry Harrison) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 03:17:38 +0000 BSE Digest Thursday, 1 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 019 In this issue: + BSE: Applecore go Boom! + BSE: Thoughts on Fuel + BSE: Fuel + Re: BSE: Thoughts on Fuel + Re: BSE: Thoughts on Fuel + BSE: Fuel + BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP + BSE: Applecore go Boom! + Re: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP + Re: BSE: Fuel + BSE: Fuel + Re: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP + Re: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP + BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the bse-list or bse-digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Hatcher <ZU02380@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 17:41:48 CST Subject: BSE: Applecore go Boom! Since I wasn't around when the Canally system went up, I was wondering whether the entire system will be unsafe when it explodes or just the areas near the sun? Alan ------------------------------ From: Alan Hatcher <ZU02380@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 17:44:48 CST Subject: BSE: Thoughts on Fuel To put my 2-cents worth in on the fuel idea, I'd have to say that most of what Phil K. proposed is a little too much on the massive changes side. I personally feel that the fuel issue is fine the way it is now. There are already a lot of things to worry about right now while running ships, and any more hassles would be very unwelcome in my view. I could see a reasonable justification in raising the cost in stellars for a maintainence visit, but that would probably be all the tinkering with it I'd like to see. Alan ------------------------------ From: Jackmyster@aol.com Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:26:54 -0500 Subject: BSE: Fuel I think I'll differ with you Phil on adding fuel. To me, I've always figured that "when" we do get to the future, we'll be "past" Exxon's. I've played games sthat required fuel, and I think it's boring... Just my $.04 worth....<---Hey, if it's "A penny for you thoughts..." and "Here's my two cents..." Somebody is making a buck! Bests- J. ------------------------------ From: RTGThad@aol.com Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 23:02:18 -0500 Subject: Re: BSE: Thoughts on Fuel Respective of fuel question/suggestion..... While I like the idea generally <of fuel>, I think it would be better if more advanced ships required fuel. As ships get bigger and bigger <as no doubt they will>, perhaps some future class of monster ship will require power expenditure to move and fuel re-supply, etc <sort of like the Snits used to>. For the purpose of ease of play out of the gate, I kind of like generalizing fuel with the maintenance concept. Future ship designs could have a "fuel" of some sort that could somewhat offset otherwise big advantages of the ship class. Anyway, not the last word on it, but that's my first thought. Thad ------------------------------ From: btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 00:15:04 EST Subject: Re: BSE: Thoughts on Fuel I don't think fuel should be an issue - ship engines are presumably fusion powered (or better), and so the actual fuel shouldn't be a problem. As things stand, ships pack much less "bang for the buck (US$)" than do colonies in terms of size, combat, etc. and things like fuel or increasing maint. costs simply serve to make things worse. After all, maint. is really just a turn surcharge.... Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "We are here to rescue Bob the Baboon from the clutches of the evil shampoo and lipstick overlords!" -Nietzsche >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: Phil Krauskopf <pkrauskopf@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 01:44:00 -0500 Subject: BSE: Fuel So it's unanimous, then? Eveyone wants all the fuel options implemented as soon as possible. And we all volunteer to pay double turn fees once its done? Great! BSE players are notorious about never all agreeing on anything. And you guys have to make history by all disagreeing with me. Well, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah! ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 23:40:23 CST Subject: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP Is the CM a merchant class ship (ie: unable to mount weapons) or a multi-function ship like the SAM CC? Steve M. ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 23:38:32 CST Subject: BSE: Applecore go Boom! Alan, When the Canally sun went boom it affected the whole system. Cava and Hogan were charred. colony Winslow was hit hard (it was on Cava). Eolmy, which once had an atmosphere, had it's atmosphere burned off, and the planet was charred to a depth of about 6 ft. ISS colony Triad (once on Eolmy) was completely burned off the planet (Eolmy was the closest planet to the triple suns the system originally had). The Gas giant... well it's still a gas giant; the game ain't set up to do anything with them anymore. Canally had 3 suns, 1 large (4 hex) and 2 small (1 hex). The small suns orbited the large sun. The black hole is where the large sun was located and the Canally exit points are located where each of the smaller suns were located. If Applecore works like Canally did, Elephant will remain relatively unaffected (other than heavy charring due to it's closeness to the sun), and Owl's Lair, which has an atmosphere, will probably have it burned off, and experiencing light charring. It is far from the sun, though, and and it's atmosphere is made up of 2 inert gases, so the damage effect to the planet might be light. The moons Dit & Twy, again light charring. Ships, I vaguely recall some ships were destroyed... those that were too close to the nova. As a rule of thumb, on the original map, Cava was 11 hexes from the central sun and 3 hexes from the southern small sun. It experienced damage but survived. Eomly was 10 hexes from the central sun and 2 hexes from the northern small sun, and the colony didn't survive (but also, one of the atmospheric gaseous was able to provide oxygen to feed the flames). An educated guess would be to stay at least 10 squares from the Applecore sun. Also, be advised, were not dealing with ABM here... RTG might not be so destructive with their suns going nova. And, the blurb that appeared on my printout on entering the system could simply be wild goose for us to chase (appologies RTG, i'm still used to MP's method of GM'ing... had to try and outthink him). Steve ------------------------------ From: Richard Chiang <richc@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 22:57:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP On Wed, 30 Nov 1994 steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org wrote: > Is the CM a merchant class ship (ie: unable to mount weapons) or a > multi-function ship like the SAM CC? > > Steve M. Yep it is a merchant ship. ie no weapons. Plus you wouldn't want to have a multifunction ship with only 12 command hulls :) ------------------------------ From: mhughes@pms144.pms.ford.com (Mark Hughes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 7:55:52 EST Subject: Re: BSE: Fuel I like the idea of fuel, to a point. I would like to think that ships are powered by a very small, efficient fuel source, so fuel shouldn't actually take up any space on a ship. Refueling should be costly, but infrequent. The cost of movement could be something like (Thruster movement) + (Jump * 10), with a typical maximum fuel load of 1000. Even a very active ship should be able to go for months between fueling. The idea of fuel should not be to add complexity or cost to running a ship; just to add a bit of realism. Mark ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 07:47:00 CST Subject: BSE: Fuel I disagree with the idea of fuel. Maintenance already abstracts the fuel a ship requires, so it already exists in the game. Adding more complexity takes away from the fun the gamehas. Steve M. ------------------------------ From: RTGThad@aol.com Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:02:25 -0500 Subject: Re: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP The SAM CC is a merchant class vessel <unable to mount weapons>. Thad ------------------------------ From: btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 13:20:02 EST Subject: Re: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP Thad, Is this a new determination by RTG? The CC was restricted as to it's use in combat by profile, not mechanics. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "We are here to rescue Bob the Baboon from the clutches of the evil shampoo and lipstick overlords!" -Nietzsche >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 17:36:30 CST Subject: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP Thad, Re-read the SAM profile. It specificly says that the CC may be used offensively. It restricts the SAM to only being able to use 1 offensively outside of their territory, but has no restriction on their use as a warship period. The only other thing it says about them (ref: SAM special ability #8) is "Cargo Carriers which have become derelicts blow-up immediately following battle". The SAM special ability which mentions their offensive use is #7. Like Brad said, is RTG changing this? Steve M. ------------------------------ End of BSE Digest V1 #19 ************************ To subscribe to bse-digest, send the command: subscribe bse-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@io.com". 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 "local-bse-list": subscribe bse-digest local-bse-list@your.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". Up