Re: New Galaxy Idea

From: dagibbs@quantum.qnx.com (David Gibbs)

Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1993 23:15:57 +0000

In article <C2529o.9FJ@athena.cs.uga.edu> peiper@athena.cs.uga.edu (Garfield) writes:
>how NOONE except by accident *poke John* researches Cargo tech. The New
>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,
>since that particular way is not as effective as researching drive tech.
>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.
>This would have the following effects.
>
>
>	At Cargo 2, with a 1 0 0 0 1 ship, you have a loaded speed of 7.8
>	At Drive 2, with the same ship, you have a loaded speed of 12.9

Note Cargo Start to get more effective once you already have some
Drive Tech.  Consider if you are already at 3 Drive, 1 Cargo.  To
get to Drive 4, Cargo 1 is the same cost as to get to Drive 3 Cargo 2.
What do these do for the loaded speeds of some ships:

(3,1) : 1 0 0 0 1   -- loaded speed 19.35
(4,1) : 1 0 0 0 1   -- loaded speed 25.81
(3,2) : 1 0 0 0 1   -- loaded speed 23.53

(3,1) : 10 0 0 0 10 -- loaded speed 15
(4,1) : 10 0 0 0 10 -- loaded speed 20
(3,2) : 10 0 0 0 10 -- loaded speed 20

(3,1) : 30 0 0 0 20 -- loaded speed 16.36
(4,1) : 30 0 0 0 20 -- loaded speed 21.82
(3,2) : 30 0 0 0 20 -- loaded speed 22.5

So once you have a fairly high drive tech, it can be more effecient
to buy cargo tech than Drive Tech.  (It also is easier to shield
a ship with Cargo and Cargo tech, but that is a minor consideration
since most big freighters aren't shield, or are only trivially
shielded anyway.  They just try to avoid combat zones.)

But I do agree with his general idea, Cargo tech is undervalued.

But is his suggested improvement too much?

Big ships start to be able to carry truly obscene quantities of
cargo at reasonable speeds!  (Tech two, cargo 30 -- 240 carried as
if it weighed 60?)  Perhaps a smaller exponent than 2 would be the
way to go, 1.5 maybe?   (ie amount = space * tech ^ .75; mass =
mass carried/ tech ^ 1.5)
Since all the calculations are done in floating point, why stick
to whole numbers?

Or another possible scheme: multiply mass carryable by (tech+1)/2
and divide the mass carried by tech, to give a slower increase
increase in mass cariable with the current decrease in mass.
(And of course one could add an exponent to tech in the numerator.)

-David
(dagibbs@quantum.qnx.com)
Bytor in Beta, among others.

References

New Galaxy Idea
peiper@athena.cs.uga.edu (Garfield)
Mon, 08 Feb 1993 16:39:22 +0000

Referenced By

New Galaxy Idea
peiper@athena.cs.uga.edu (Garfield)
Mon, 08 Feb 1993 16:39:22 +0000