newtonian motion

[Spoo]

quote:

---

1/819 of this distance (which is the size of a tactical square) is roughly 12 million km.

---

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.

[Puke]

quote:

---

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.)

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogscoff:

*narf*

---

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

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

[capnq]

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"

[Quikngruvn]

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....

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

[Magnum357]

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.

[Quikngruvn]

quote:

---

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.

---

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).]

[capnq]

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

< walks away from monkey wrench, whistling innocently >

------------------
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"