newtonian motion
 

not a bad idea. it would be nice if newtonian motion was implemented, where your ship would maintain its velocity until counter thrust was applied. the big obsticle to this probably is not in coding it for se4 (i could see sneaking it into a patch) but in ballancing it. what happens when a ship hits a mapedge? it stops? then it can reverse on a dime again? maybe it goes off the map and exits combat? you hit that whole 'runnig away' problem again. I cant think of how to do this without infinite map size. you get a whole new set of problems with the system map than on the combat map too.

I think that basically, turning should be free in space. you might not be able to stop on a dime, but you sure as heck should be able to turn on one, even 180degs. if you did institute turning MPs, then it would require things like weapons facings, or different armor values on different ship facings.

------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)

Re: newtonian motion
 

The map could wrap east to west and north to south. That would make some interesting combat scenarios. But I doubt the AI would be smart enough to exploit them unless its pathing was changed to know about the wrap.....

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LCC:
The map could wrap east to west and north to south. That would make some interesting combat scenarios. But I doubt the AI would be smart enough to exploit them unless its pathing was changed to know about the wrap.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

wow, remember playing asteroids and you would try to see how fast you could go if you just kept pushing the throttle and wrapping around the screen? pretty soon you would just be a blur. what do you mean im the only one that did that?

and what happened to the first post on this thread? I didnt start this thing, are people to embarassed to be associated with me now?

edit: or maybe i clicked on 'new topic' instead of 'reply.' come to think of it, i was wondering why it prompted me for a subject on that post.


[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 09 July 2001).]

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LCC:
The map could wrap east to west and north to south. That would make some interesting combat scenarios. But I doubt the AI would be smart enough to exploit them unless its pathing was changed to know about the wrap.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmm, Spacewar. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Wouldn't need a whole lot of techs to do it, either. Couldn't simulate the shuffling of constantly-recharging energy between shields and power, 'tho. Pity.

Re: newtonian motion
 

Ooooh, donut shaped universes. Stars like sugar candy.

Throw in a twist and play on a projected plane, or maybe a Klein bottle.

The Mobius strip game with shorcuts "through" the strip.

Why stop with Euclidian geometry--hyperbolic galaxies. What fun!

Re: newtonian motion
 

Check out Pirates&Nomads v2.0 (in sig), its one step closer to newtonian physics than original SE4.

Classic: Thrust = Speed
P&N v2: Thrust/mass = Speed

Its probably the closest thing you'll see for a while.

------------------
The latest Pirates & Nomads.
-&lt;Download V1.6&gt;-
-&lt;Download compatible EMPs for P&N v1.6&gt;-
-&lt;Easy to Use AI Patcher for any of SJ's mods&gt;-
Visit My Homepage

Re: newtonian motion
 

A possible solution to the 'map-edge' problem: floating map! If a ship goes off the edge of the map, the map moves (that is, ships keep their relative position but not necessarily absolute position), or it just gets bigger (this is apce after all? Is there a space limit on space?).

So long as there is a turn limit on tactical combat, there is no need for an 'infinite' map. Figure two ships start combat on opposite sides of the current tactical map. Each ship is fast as possible (six quantum engine + solar sail + propulsion experts). Now assume that from the start of combat, they run away from each other at full velocity. THAT is as wide as the map must be: (30 x speed) + starting distance apart. Same for map height.

('Course, for maps that get that big, you'll need scrolling and zoom features in tactical combat. But I digress. Again.)

(What I'd really like to see is 3-D tactical combat, but I'm not just about to hold my breath!)

Puke, when you say 'free space', so you mean space in the system map or space in general? Turning costs wouldn't figure in system movement, since it's not nearly as time- and reflex-critical as tactical combat.

But, even in space, everything has momentum, based on its mass and velocity. A ship wanting to turn 180 degrees would have to (a) engage manuevering thrusters to turn the ship; (b) engage additional maneuvering thrusters to keep the ship from veering to the side while turning; and (c) engage main thrusters when finally turned around to overcome the original forward velocity. Thus, an escort with relatively little mass expends much less energy to turn around (much less mass to rotate) and can do it more quickly than a dreadnought going the same speed (and the escort's not five parsecs away when it's finally going forward in its new direction).

And I thought the universe was shaped like a banana....

Quikngruvn

------------------
"That which does not kill you will make you stronger." -- Nietzsche

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
wow, remember playing asteroids and you would try to see how fast you could go if you just kept pushing the throttle and wrapping around the screen? pretty soon you would just be a blur. what do you mean im the only one that did that?
[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 09 July 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can assure you, you were _NOT_ the only one that did that!

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
Puke, when you say 'free space', so you mean space in the system map or space in general? Turning costs wouldn't figure in system movement, since it's not nearly as time- and reflex-critical as tactical combat.

But, even in space, everything has momentum, based on its mass and velocity. A ship wanting to turn 180 degrees would have to (a) engage manuevering thrusters to turn the ship; (b) engage additional maneuvering thrusters to keep the ship from veering to the side while turning; and (c) engage main thrusters when finally turned around to overcome the original forward velocity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

beats the hell out of me, when did i say 'free space?'

I think i was talking about both tac and strategic movement though, and I think my general idea was that you can turn on a dime by using principals (a) and (b) you describe. immagine a ship fires a thruster on the starboard side of the bow, and simultaniously fires one on the port side of the stern in 180degree opposition. it will spin in place, regardless of linear momentum. it should be able to do it fairly quickly, too (especially if it has enough overall thrust to cross a solar system in the space of a month). to stop turning, its the same process in reverse. principal (c) need not be applied unless you want to do something more than just turn. which is why i started talking about facings and such sillyness.

this would of course work on strategic map scale too, if you could build up velocity, would you have to slow down before hitting a planet? stands to reason that half your trip would be acceleration and the other half deceleration. what would happen if you hit a wormhole at some velocity? come out at the same velocity? what happens if you hit a map edge on the strategic map?

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>when did i say 'free space?'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You didn't; what you said was: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>turning should be free in space<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by capnq:
You didn't; what you said was: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I am lost on the context of the question for that one. I hope I got the reply right? if not, feel free to ask again, i can be thick sometimes.

edit: I read it again. i was talking about tactical movement, so i got the answer right, at least half way. and since knowing is half the battle (presumeably the other half), and now that I know what we are talking about, I can now say for certainty that I have won. thank you for playing. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/tongue.gif

------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 11 July 2001).]

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
I read it again. i was talking about tactical movement, so i got the answer right, at least half way. and since knowing is half the battle (presumeably the other half), and now that I know what we are talking about, I can now say for certainty that I have won. thank you for playing. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/tongue.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainty? Heisenberg would be spinning in his grave....

But getting back to your ship wanting to do a U-turn with a thruster on port and starboard. Assuming these thrusters are offset from the center of the ship (near bow or stern, otherwise they would just cancel each other), a ship could indeed spin around very quickly, assuming it generates the necessary thrust to make the ship spin, and then the counter-thrust to stop it from rotating.

But figure this: if a ship can generate a fixed amount of energy per turn for thrust, then some of that energy must be diverted to the rotating thrusters to spin. Bigger ships, having more mass, would require more thrust to spin the same rate as a less massive ship. Thus, spinning costs more the bigger the ship.

The difference with the strategic map is the scale of time. Since a turn is roughly equal to a month, a ship sliding into a planet's sector would have plenty of time to decelerate to orbital velocity before parking in orbit over the planet. Tactical combat, on the other hand, relies on what a ship can do in a span of a few minutes. This limit is expressed in movement points. If rotating takes no movement points, then it follows that it also takes no time, which means a ship rotates at approximately the speed of light, which means... I defer to Mr. Einstein.

There. I've run rings around your logic.

Now why do I have this feeling this is gonna cost me in a game somewhere...?

Quikngruvn



------------------
"That which does not kill you will make you stronger." -- Nietzsche

Re: newtonian motion
 

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...s/confused.gif
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...s/confused.gif

Ow Ow Ow, my aching head!

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon10.gif

Re: newtonian motion
 

[quote\ Certainty? Heisenberg would be spinning in his grave.... [/quote]

Don't you mean Heisenberg is simultaniously spinning in his grave and just lying there -until you check that is. Or maybe it was Shroeder's cat...

------------------
Assume you have a 1kg squirrel
E=mc^2
E=1kg(3x10^8m/s)^2=9x10^16J
which, if I'm not mistaken, is equivilent to roughly a 50 megaton nuclear bomb.
Fear the squirrel.

Re: newtonian motion
 

Physics humor. Is that horrible or what! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spoo:
[quote\ Certainty? Heisenberg would be spinning in his grave.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you mean Heisenberg is simultaniously spinning in his grave and just lying there -until you check that is. Or maybe it was Shroeder's cat...
[/quote]

You mean Schroedinger's cat?

Or maybe they're all spinning a giant roulette wheel and using the results to calculate the probability wave representing the ship in the first place... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
Or maybe they're all spinning a giant roulette wheel and using the results to calculate the probability wave representing the ship in the first place... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know my head's still spinning from my Last post. Give me little bit and I'll get it flipped from negative to positive spin....

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lupusman:
Physics humor. Is that horrible or what!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've got nothing on Mother Nature when it comes to physics humor. I read an article Last year about some physicists deciphering the structure of protons and neutrons. They already knew that 98% of matter is just empty space, the rest being made up of elementary particles. After their analysis, they concluded that the remaining 2% of matter is mostly... well, nothing.

OK, time to think happy thoughts now!

Quikngruvn


------------------
"That which does not kill you will make you stronger." -- Nietzsche

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
Certainty? Heisenberg would be spinning in his grave....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

would be, IF he had oposing thrusters on his fore and aft to spin with! as it stands, I think there is considerably more friction in his grave than we are dealing with in space, so he certainly would not spin as well as one of the ships we are discussing.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
Bigger ships, having more mass, would require more thrust to spin the same rate as a less massive ship. Thus, spinning costs more the bigger the ship.

The difference with the strategic map is the scale of time....Tactical combat, on the other hand, relies on what a ship can do in a span of a few minutes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

all very true, i just figured that the time scale was such that the time and thrust necessary to turn (equal to thrust necessary to move a distance equal to no more than half the circumferance of a cricle with radius half the length of the ship in question, and then stop) would be negligable compared to the thrust necessary to move a ship one square on the tactical grid. which is somewhere between 1/2 the diamater of a tiny moon and 1/2 the diamater of a sphereworld which is built around a sun at the distance of some orbital shell n. this of course is a very big range, but either way it is presumably significantly greater than the distance required for a turn. basically, i figured our distances were bigger and time longer. not that your point is in any way invalid.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
There. I've run rings around your logic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

haha, my logic extends a forearm for the clothes-line!

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
I know my head's still spinning from my Last post. Give me little bit and I'll get it flipped from negative to positive spin....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


you sure its not spinning in a state of supermotion? hold on while i observe it.


------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
...i just figured that the time scale was such that the time and thrust necessary to turn... would be negligable compared to the thrust necessary to move a ship one square on the tactical grid.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may be. Let me see if I can so some rough calculations....

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity^2
KE is expresses in joules, the unit of energy.

So, a ship of mass M must expend J joules of energy to rotate at a given velocity V.

Now, assume you have a 150 kT escort and a 1500 kT baseship, both of which want to turn around in the same amount of time. Since the baseship is ten times more massive than the escort, it must expend ten times as much energy as the escort to execute the same turn.

Further, the velocity of the basheship must be greater than the escorts.

Circumference = pi x Diameter
Distance = Velocity x Time

Assuming a 180 degree turn, the distance traveled for each end of the ship is one-half the circumference, thus:

Distance = 1/2 x pi x Diameter = Velocity x Time
Velocity = (1/2 x pi)/Time x Diameter

Since the time is the same for both ships' turns, (1/2 x pi)/Time is a constant. Thus, the only thing affecting the velocity of the spin is the diameter of the ship: the longer the ship, the greater the velocity.

Thus, the longer a ship is, the more energy it must expend to execute a turn in a given length of time. Unless there are some funky ship designs going on, the baseship will be significantly longer than the escort, and thus must expend more energy. Oh yeah, and the difference in velocity is also squared, increasing the difference in energy even more....

N.B. These are very crude calculations, really. They do not take into account the fact that different parts of the ship will move at different speeds during the turn. The true velocity of any point on a ship during a turn will depend on the distance of that point from the axis of rotation. But, seeing that it would take calculus to compute the sum total of the kinetic energies of each point on a ship, I simplified just a smidgem. However, since much of the baseship will be spinning faster than the fastest points on the escort, this shouldn't affect the gist of my argument, just the values I'm about to pull out of the air. I'll use points midway between the axis of rotation and the tip of the ship to get an "average" value for velocity and kinetic energy.

So, if you've got a 20-meter long escort and a 100-meter long baseship, the midpoints would be 5 meters and 25 meters, respectively, and so the difference in velocity would be:

Velocity = Q x radius, where Q is a constant
Velocity(baseship) = 25 x Q
Velocity(escort) = 5 x Q

Thus, the baseship's average rotational velocity is 5 times that of the escort.

So, to get back to the energy expended, we gotta go back to the kinetic energy formula and input my seemingly arbitrary values:

KE = 1/2 x m x v^2
m(baseship) = 10 x m(escort)
v(bs) = 5 x v(e)
KE(e) = 1/2 x m(e) x v(e)^2
KE(bs) = 1/2 x m(bs) x v(bs)^2
= 1/2 x 10 x m(e) x (5 x v(e))^2
= 1/2 x 10 x m(e) x 25 x v(e)^2
= 250 x 1/2 x m(e) x v(e)^2
= 250 x KE(e)

THUS, a baseship must create approximately 250 times the thrust of an escort to perform an identical turn in a given length of time, at least using arbitrary (but I thimk plausible) values.

And then on top of that, there's the counterthrust each ship must expend to overcome momentum in the ship's original direction....

Sorry, I got carried away. Puke, I think I could have put your logic in a chokehold, but I think I bored it to death instead. Now, lemme catch my brain before it dribbles out of my head completely....

Quikngruvn

------------------
"That which does not kill you will make you stronger." -- Nietzsche

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
Sorry, I got carried away..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not at all. i understood your point from the begining, and it is totally valid. what you are overlooking is that while it requires exponentially more thrust for a larger ship to spin, it requires them both far more thrust to move, say, one sqare on the tactical grid. unless the square is not much greater in size than the ship its self.

lacking my old physics ledgers, I cant pull up formulae for you, but let me give it a shot extrapolating from some basic geometry (granted I slept through geometry yet paid attention through physics, but guess which one comes readily to mind 7 years later? danm that. odds are my math is going to be invalid, so feel free to point out any glaring flaws) what we need to do is get a feel for the scale of the game:

in order to get an idea of scale, we need some rough idea of what a square is on the tactical grid. while they seem to have sides with length equal to the lengh of their diagnal, we will presume for a moment that they are insted standard geometric squares and not these bizarre geometrically impossible things. we can extrapolate that each of the (roughly) 63 squares along the side of the tactical map is 1/63 of a strategic square, which is in turn 1/13th the diamater of the stellar system in question. given that pluto is roughly 5.9 billion KM from the sun at its average orbital distance, we can simplify and say that the average solar system in se4 is 10 billion km in diamater. 1/819 of this distance (which is the size of a tactical square) is roughly 12 million km.

The Nimitz class carrier displaces about 97 metric KT and is roughly 330 meters long. if we figure that our escort is about 1.5 times the mass then we can presume (okay, its a crappy presumption, but its the simplest way of doing it) that its length would increase arrithmetically to 495(or 500)meters, the baseship following at 5000 meters. (and those distances are generous condisering that space vessels could be far more dense than earth based surface-ships, since they dont need to worry about silly things like displacing water)

now, with the .5*pi*D formula to find the longest distance traveled in a rotation (or half-rotation, as it were), we come up with about 7850m for the baseship and 785m for the escort. just in case you think im nitpickingon the distances you chose, im NOT: this is just to give you as much distance as possible regarding comparative lenght of a turn (that is, it would have been far more beneficial to my point if i had simply kept your numbers). I am in complete agreement that the core of your arguement reamins the same, and remains unchallenged.

BUT, we have ships that appear to be capable of transversing a minimum (basic engines) of 6*12billion meters(escort) or 2*12billion meters in one turn, from a standing start. now the original point of the thread was that they can not accelerate beyond this, and they can accelerate in the oposite direction without overcoming their own momentum, but we have obviously lost track of that at this point.

now, while I grant you that my flippant referance to turning being 'free in space' was something akin to Cisco's flatulant claims that bandwidth is free, the gist of the argument remains the same. the ammount of thrust expended to rotate a ship, a distance of no more than 7,850 meters, is significantly less than that required to transverse the 12,000,000,000 meters in one square. therefore, turning has no right costing any movement points, and even if a baseship takes longer to do it than an escort, it will happen in a space of time that is completely miniscule compared to the space of time required for either of the two example ships to move one square.

now, to forestall any other attempts at wwf-smackdown-style acrobatics being purprotrated against my logic, let me forstall your arguements by saying that you could further deconstruct this by supposing that a turn consists of a ship accelerating for the first half of its movement and decelerating for the second half, thus removing the requirement for a ship to overcome momentum on a turn.. i dont know where that would really get us, but i can imagine someone trying to take it somewhere. furthermore, i could go on to deconstruct your turning argument by stating that due to the increased length of the base ship, you can apply thrust further from the axis of rotation and achieve more velocity per joule than if they were closer to the axis of rotation (as is the escort's). but since im not actually arguing against your point, i wont go into the proof.

I usually try to keep things light-hearted, so I have to appologize if I have inadvertently turned this discussion into a logical testosterone fest. furthermore, i have to appologize for my abhorant spelling and guestimated mathmatics. Since I have been in basic agreement with you from the start, you probably dont need to expend quite so much effort running rings around me while I am only attempting to stand still and point in a related direction. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

I do want to encourage further disucssion though. I enjoy a friendly intelectual conversation, and i usually tend to have more to learn than i do to offer.

------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 13 July 2001).]

Re: newtonian motion
 

*narf*

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> 1/819 of this distance (which is the size of a tactical square) is roughly 12 million km. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but you forget that scale has no meaning in Se4. By your system a planet would be 24 million km across -20 times the diameter of the sun! (But then again planets and stars are shown as the same size. Go figure.)

------------------
Assume you have a 1kg squirrel
E=mc^2
E=1kg(3x10^8m/s)^2=9x10^16J
which, if I'm not mistaken, is equivilent to roughly a 50 megaton nuclear bomb.
Fear the squirrel.

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spoo:
Ah, but you forget that scale has no meaning in Se4. By your system a planet would be 24 million km across -20 times the diameter of the sun! (But then again planets and stars are shown as the same size. Go figure.)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


well, thats because, um... the diamater of planets are measured by the diagonal of the square, which is an abstract representation of three dimensional space, and thus you can traverse what should be a shorter distance along the x axis by, umm.. utilizing the z axis, which is on a smaller scale.. and ahh... well, heck, even if you measure a square by the size of a planet, i think my point holds water.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dogscoff:

*narf*
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

point taken, i stand narffed. i shall leave this thread alone.

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 13 July 2001).]

Re: newtonian motion
 

It seems pretty silly to even pretend every object on the map is drawn to scale. Consider that the length of even the smallest 150kT Escort is a significant fraction of a planet's diameter.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Re: newtonian motion
 

What's really happening is that the tactical squares are really only 1000 miles across (1600 km for y'all raised on metric), and that the image we see of a tiny planet is its equatorial cross-section, but the image of a star is really just a teeny, tiny sliver, and the remaining 99.99% of the star is actually behind the map....

I was going to post a rebuttal to Puke this afternoon, but my logic hit a brick wall (repeatedly, and now it hurts like a...). Spoo's already pointed out the 15 million mile-diameter moon, so there's obviously a bit of ambiguity in the scale of distance and the scale of time in tactical combat.

So, for the sake of sending this thread on a completely different tangent, I suggest that a tactical square represent 1000 miles, a tactical turn represent 5 minutes, and thus tactical combat Last no more than two and a half hours per skirmish. (I also thought about 10000 miles and 1 minute, but since I couldn't decide in favor of any value over the other, I went with my original arbitrary instincts.)

Naturally, any planet and star images would have to be altered. Since a star would take up the whole of the map, maybe just have part of the star visible (an arc taking up, say, part of the top of the map). Ships that get to close to the star's edge could take solar damage, eventually burning to a crisp. 'Course, then the map would have to be bigger, but a scrolling and zooming map could take care of that.

I can't continue my line of reasoning until we at least agree on a scale of time and distance. I gotta hear your opinions on this... (sound of can opener and a worm falling to the floor).

Quikngruvn

------------------
"That which does not kill you will make you stronger." -- Nietzsche

P.S. You know what would be really cool? Movement cost for turning in tactical combat.... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by Quikngruvn (edited 14 July 2001).]

Re: newtonian motion
 

Good point! I definitly do not consider the Strategic and Tactical Sqaures to scale in "Real world" situations. I like to think that a Tactical Map is a pretty small fraction of a Strategic map and Tactical Squares are a pretty huge area themselves (the old Board Starfire had big Tactical Hexes that equaled about 50,000 Kms or something like that). So to me anyway, the reason why the ships look like they are turning on a dime is because the each square is such a vast distance that the acutual "Turn Mode" of a ship due to mass is unmeasurable because it is such a vast distance of area. Just my theory of looking at it.

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magnum357:
So to me anyway, the reason why the ships look like they are turning on a dime is because the each square is such a vast distance that the acutual "Turn Mode" of a ship due to mass is unmeasurable because it is such a vast distance of area. Just my theory of looking at it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw this after I posted my message below. Puke's already convinced me that as it stands, a tactical square is vast. My problem is with the ambiguity of scale.

Another thought: Take a DUC V, range 5 from its target. Imagine a uranium marble (or basketball, or Yugo) being bLasted toward its target and travelling millions of miles before it smacks into the side of the offending vessel. Even with sophisticated computers with the latest and greatest tracking system, that's still a heckuva shot!

OK, I promise I'll shut up now (at least till tomorrow).

Quikngruvn


[This message has been edited by Quikngruvn (edited 14 July 2001).]

Re: newtonian motion
 

OTOH, tactical squares are so small that ships can't move past each other, or stack together without colliding.

&lt; walks away from monkey wrench, whistling innocently &gt;

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Re: newtonian motion
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by capnq:
OTOH, tactical squares are so small that ships can't move past each other, or stack together without colliding.

&lt; walks away from monkey wrench, whistling innocently &gt;

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...BUT are big enough for missiles to wind through or direct-fire shots to pass through....

I'm beginning to realize how Pandora felt....

Quikngruvn

Re: newtonian motion
 

Definitly all good points! The Scale in SE4 is REALLY abstract, but at least it doesn't effect gameplay too much (depending how deep you want to get into the game).

I'm not sure why MM made it not possible for ships too stack, se3 alowed this.