SDB's vs. Warships

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Infojunky
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:19 pm
Location: North of Center California

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby Infojunky » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:16 pm

I always love it when someone pompously states "You can't hide in Space" then just as cluelessly supports their point of view with an oblique statement about physics. It really demonstrates that they have no idea about what the question really is.

1st off, what is or isn't detectable is less a question about physics but more about what level of engineering you are willing throw at it. Which in itself is a turns into a cost/benefit equation. In that 360 degree volumetric surveillance of space requires exponentially more hardware and manpower with each incremental increase in range. So the question not what you can theoretically do but how much it will cost to do it.

2nd back to the cost/benefit part, merchants are going to have only what is minimally necessary to safely operate in terms of their entire physical plant. Ergo, insurance is cheaper than military grade sensors, and that is how they are going to manage their risk.
Evyn
Somebody
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1359
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby Somebody » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:29 pm

F33D wrote:
Somebody wrote:
In my experience most players do not care that this scanning can be done IRL. Even less so when they want to play a pirat campaign. Neither do most GMs.
It's is even in the MRB. So, house rule away. But, if you have a player that passed 7th grade Physical Science class he's going to have a ball end running you by using the non physics in your game. It would be almost as massive a change as if you said that gravity doesn't exist in your game...
One PhD in Physical Science
One with a "Vordiplom" in PS (basically equivalent to a US Bachelor)
And two more have been, like me, trained engineers and had quite a few mandatory physics classes

But there is "Games" and "Reality". And just like I can play a very loose "Roman Empire" with two gamers who have a Master in Roman Archeology or a loose "Victorian" with a guy who has written his Masters thesis about this era I can play a game that ignores real world physics with those players because they can make that difference. Same with say Twilight:2000 - the rules do not allow to build a german enlisted and are barely adequat for a low grade NCO. Yet we had great fun playing it during 1990s Bundeswehr exercises. Because we know and accept that it is a game.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4910
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby phavoc » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:40 pm

F33D wrote:
phavoc wrote:
You are being overly dismissive and missing the point.
No. I'm being 100% accurate.
Lulz. The response of someone who clearly can't debate or defend their point. I'm still waiting on that memo that says you know everything there is and ever will be in science.

Anti-gravity is against the current laws of physics too. As is a jump drive. And meson guns, and making collapsed matter armor. And space-faring dolphins (well, that's more biological than physics).

It was physically impossible to hide against radar... till they figured out a way to do it.

Wanna come back with a one liner on that one?
dragoner
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:37 pm
Location: Indiana, US

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby dragoner » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:01 am

phavoc wrote:
Lulz. The response of someone who clearly can't debate or defend their point. I'm still waiting on that memo that says you know everything there is and ever will be in science.

Anti-gravity is against the current laws of physics too. As is a jump drive. And meson guns, and making collapsed matter armor. And space-faring dolphins (well, that's more biological than physics).

It was physically impossible to hide against radar... till they figured out a way to do it.

Wanna come back with a one liner on that one?
It's just trolling, anybody who has read current stuff on m-theory and such knows we don't have a clue how the anything really works. Billions of universes? Eleven dimensions? Why doesn't general and quantum physics match? A while back I read a paper on how they think that gravity is interacting with multiple other universes (some where even the basic laws of physics are different); so if the best minds in science don't know, I'm 100% positive he doesn't. For all we know, anti-gravity is simple and obvious, but we don't have the frame of reference to see it. Stealth in space as well, hide in another dimension or wrap space around your ship.

Dream big, the worst that can happen is that it's wrong, which isn't a big deal.
F33D
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby F33D » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:27 am

Infojunky wrote:I always love it when someone pompously states "You can't hide in Space"
So do I because it is true. If you are looking for a grammar school level tutor to teach you WHY, it'll be $200/hour...
F33D
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby F33D » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:28 am

Somebody wrote: But there is "Games"
Correct. See GAME rule in MRB
F33D
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby F33D » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:30 am

phavoc wrote: Lulz.
I'm sorry but I don't defend known physical laws. That's would be insane.
Wil Mireu
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:43 am

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby Wil Mireu » Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:48 am

F33D wrote:I'm sorry but I don't defend known physical laws. That's would be insane.
You don't defend anything, you just troll. You insult and attack and sneer at people on pretty much every single thread you're on, and you only get away with it here because this board doesn't have any moderation to speak of.
User avatar
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3496
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby Reynard » Sat Nov 16, 2013 3:00 am

The game of Hide and Seek in space is directly proportional to the needs of the scriptwriter to tell an interesting story. Reality in movies and gaming has little to do with it.

Weren't we originally discussing SDBs vs. Warships?
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4910
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby phavoc » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:12 am

F33D wrote:I'm sorry but I don't defend known physical laws. That's would be insane.
I like how you don't put any backing into your statements to even try to prove your point. The "known" physical laws have been changing since they were created. But oh no, it's "impossible" to hide in space. And you've proved it....

You ain't proved dick. Till you've gone out in space and proven your statements, they remain only theory. Lemme help you with that definition - In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. That's what the National Academy of Sciences says.

So I'm waiting for you to provide the background information upon which you are basing your statement. Please tell me when these experiments were carried out in space that support your statement. Otherwise it remains theory. While that's not a law, it is what us other people call a definition.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby Sigtrygg » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:27 am

There really isn't much chance of stealth in space with the technology postulated in Traveller.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... detect.php
Nerhesi
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:46 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby Nerhesi » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:28 am

phavoc wrote:
F33D wrote:I'm sorry but I don't defend known physical laws. That's would be insane.
I like how you don't put any backing into your statements to even try to prove your point. The "known" physical laws have been changing since they were created. But oh no, it's "impossible" to hide in space. And you've proved it....

You ain't proved dick. Till you've gone out in space and proven your statements, they remain only theory. Lemme help you with that definition - In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. That's what the National Academy of Sciences says.

So I'm waiting for you to provide the background information upon which you are basing your statement. Please tell me when these experiments were carried out in space that support your statement. Otherwise it remains theory. While that's not a law, it is what us other people call a definition.
What are you doing?! It's F33D! Take a look at his post history and you will realise that reason, or logic does not factor into his arguments. Whether it is game rules, concepts, reality... just browse his post history and give up now! :)

Your other option is to keep this up until he stops responding because half a dozen or so people have jumped on the thread just out of sheer frustration from reading his attempted arguments.
rust
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5941
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:17 pm
Location: Sonthofen / Germany

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby rust » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:37 am

As long as Traveller's technology is only able to turn one form
of energy into another form of energy true stealth in space is
difficult to achieve, if at all, because any kind of energy is com-
paratively easy to detect. However, a technology able to turn
energy into matter would make stealth in space possible - but
this is beyond Traveller's technology assumptions.
Infojunky
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:19 pm
Location: North of Center California

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby Infojunky » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:58 am

F33D wrote:
Infojunky wrote:I always love it when someone pompously states "You can't hide in Space"
So do I because it is true.
Kinda, How much money are you going to throw at it? Because that is what controls how much and how far you see. All I was pointing out that your little aphorism has a very strong economic control.

Now I could take the tack and ask you to Prove your assumption, but if you noticed I accepted it as true in a general sense. I could point out the specific flaws of the statement in the certain cases, but the economic factor is the primary controlling factor by far.

Always, always, always, it comes down to dirty Lucre.

As for your kind offer to come out and tutor me, if you publicly post your incidentals and any significant peer-reviewed papers that you have written that are salient to the subject, I will asked around and see if there is any interest in funding such a trip.
Evyn
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14902
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby MongooseMatt » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:51 am

Gentlemen, please turn the debate down a notch...
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
Somebody
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1359
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby Somebody » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:55 pm

F33D wrote:
Somebody wrote: But there is "Games"
Correct. See GAME rule in MRB
Short tip:

I do not use Mongoose Traveller rules since I dislike the character gen(I use TNE there) and the simplified construction rules (Mega there) I do use of the supplements like Sector Fleet, Reft Sector etc. and like those a lot. I borrow ideas and concepts from others including the ship books. The rules set I use HAS stealth systems (MegaTraveller - Electronic Masking)
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4910
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby phavoc » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:41 pm

msprange wrote:Gentlemen, please turn the debate down a notch...
I got pissed. I apologize.
Wil Mireu
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:43 am

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby Wil Mireu » Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:51 pm

msprange wrote:Gentlemen, please turn the debate down a notch...
How about you ban F33D for his persistent rudeness and trolling? You must have had a ton of complaints about him by now.
crazy_cat
Mongoose
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:06 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby crazy_cat » Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:58 pm

Wil Mireu wrote:
msprange wrote:Gentlemen, please turn the debate down a notch...
How about you ban F33D for his persistent rudeness and trolling? You must have had a ton of complaints about him by now.
+1. Or just at least try and moderate the forums maybe just a little bit once in a while.
"You should never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die"
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4910
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: SDB's vs. Warships

Postby phavoc » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:21 pm

crazy_cat wrote:
Wil Mireu wrote:
msprange wrote:Gentlemen, please turn the debate down a notch...
How about you ban F33D for his persistent rudeness and trolling? You must have had a ton of complaints about him by now.
+1. Or just at least try and moderate the forums maybe just a little bit once in a while.
-1 for the ban. I'm against banning in general. While I have my own private opinions about some of the posts and such, nothing he's done that I'm aware of is ban-worthy.

People have a right to their opinion. I don't always agree with him, and obviously was frustrated by his responses here, but he has the right to be that way. Besides, he's not constantly attacking people. His "questionable" responses at times are his to own, his to defend, his rights. We can agree to disagree and move on.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests