Re: New Galaxy Idea

From: arc@leland.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Richard Conway)

Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1993 23:02:40 +0000

In article <30842@oasys.dt.navy.mil> curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch) writes:
>In rec.games.pbm, peiper@athena.cs.uga.edu (Garfield) writes:
>>        I had a new idae for Galaxy. I am sure most of you have noticed
>>how NOONE except by accident *poke John* researches Cargo tech.
>
>>3.3 rules have made a step in the right direction by making cargo tech
>>reduce cargo weight by half. I would propose a more drastic step,
>
>>I would propose that you allow Cargo tech to increase the cargoability
>>by a factoir of 2, and that you reduce the cargo weight to 1/4.
>
>I have an idea that I like better.  Just reduce the cargo weight to 0.
>This makes everything much simpler.
>
>The amount of cargo a ship can hold should be the cargo research times
>the cargo size.
>
>The mass of a ship should be the same as it is now for an unloaded cargo
>ship.
>
>  [ description of why this is a good idea omitted ]

I think that this would be a good idea, and support it.

One thing that may be better still, is to say that the mass
of cargo is the actual mass of cargo, divided by the cargo-tech.
What? you scream! Unrealistic! Well, what IS cargo tech?
ability to strap mass onto the sides of ships? Naaah, it is
the ability to make mass nullifiers, dimensional gaps, etc.

Thus, a full ship would have the same speed INDEPENDENT of the cargo
technology...and you would still have a difference in speed between
full and empty ships. If this were introduced, I would invest in cargo tech.

Andrew.

References

New Galaxy Idea
peiper@athena.cs.uga.edu (Garfield)
Mon, 08 Feb 1993 16:39:22 +0000
Re: New Galaxy Idea
curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Mon, 08 Feb 1993 20:16:10 +0000

Referenced By

New Galaxy Idea
peiper@athena.cs.uga.edu (Garfield)
Mon, 08 Feb 1993 16:39:22 +0000
Re: New Galaxy Idea
curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Mon, 08 Feb 1993 20:16:10 +0000