Space Battles: Harrington or Star Wars?

[EDG]

GURPS Traveller used "G" as a 'velocity rating' instead of a standard rate of acceleration. The very first 3rd Ed GURPS Traveller campaign I played in blew my mind when the ship moving to intercepted ours suddenly accelerated from a speed of '1G' to a speed of '5Gs'. Actually the entire group pretty much said "WTF" when that happened.

Why do you keep making this claim? You've made it before here, I pointed out that you were wrong, and asked you to show me where GURPS Traveller said that and you never did. That'd be because it's a completely false claim.

At no point has GURPS (any part of GURPS, not just Traveller) ever claimed that G is a velocity. G is always used to measure acceleration in GURPS - velocity is measured in mph or kph. That ship could not have accelerated from a "speed of 1G to a speed of 5G" - if it did, the GM fundamentally misunderstood how velocity and acceleration worked, and that's the GM's fault not GURPS'. It could have accelerated from 1G to 5G acceleration if the drive was capable of accelerating at that rate, and that would make perfect sense.

 

[AKAramis]

Martin: Didn't you write a traveller novel or three?

 

[MJD]

Oh, I see. Well, yes. Two of them as it happens, with a third well underway. I'm not sure what I'll do with that one now. Might convert it to straight SF or something.

 

[SnowDog]

I could very well be wrong here, but somehow I have an impression that Transhuman Space (GURPS setting) uses Gs as speed. I have to check this, though as I am not entirely certain. I remember this (or a similar case) because this seemed so plain wrong to me.

On the other hand it some perverse way makes sense since relative acceleration tells you how much the distance changes between two objects within a certain amount of time. Of course it wreaks havoc with total distances (like when you have to calculate if you can get back to your carrier ship)

 

[MJD]

Not really; relative acceleration tells you how relative velocity changes in a given time period. Unless you like doing calculus for fun, velocity is the one to work in, applying velocity changes (ie acceleration) as they happen.

If I'm accelerating away from your ship at 5gs and you're accelerating towards me at 1g, that's a net 4g acceleration apart. Does that help tell if we'll meet? A bit, but you need more information, like distance apart and existing velocity.

 

[SableWyvern]

I could very well be wrong here, but somehow I have an impression that Transhuman Space (GURPS setting) uses Gs as speed. I have to check this, though as I am not entirely certain. I remember this (or a similar case) because this seemed so plain wrong to me.

Are you sure you didn't just misinterpret the acceleration as a speed rating, because you were looking for a separate speed value and couldn't find one?

A spacecraft's top speed is simply a factor of it's acceleration and the length of time for which it can maintain that acceleration (depending on fuel/power/reaction mass available). As such, including an actual value for speed is nonsensical, unless you're using some unusual drive system based on alternative physics.

(No offense intended if you're already aware of that.)

 

[SnowDog]

Not really; relative acceleration tells you how relative velocity changes in a given time period. Unless you like doing calculus for fun, velocity is the one to work in, applying velocity changes (ie acceleration) as they happen.

If I'm accelerating away from your ship at 5gs and you're accelerating towards me at 1g, that's a net 4g acceleration apart. Does that help tell if we'll meet? A bit, but you need more information, like distance apart and existing velocity.

Yes, it does tell that I won't catch you But yeah, it won't tell how far apart we are and when you will be out of range from my weapons, that's entirely true.

 

[SnowDog]

Are you sure you didn't just misinterpret the acceleration as a speed rating, because you were looking for a separate speed value and couldn't find one?

A spacecraft's top speed is simply a factor of it's acceleration and the length of time for which it can maintain that acceleration (depending on fuel/power/reaction mass available). As such, including an actual value for speed is nonsensical, unless you're using some unusual drive system based on alternative physics.

(No offense intended if you're already aware of that.)

Non taken and although I can be a bit thick I have read that much physics I checked Transhuman Space books and in those there were sAcc entry (that I take as a space acceleration) that is in Gs. So, I could not find any fault in that game/setting and I must have remembered it incorrectly (or I just made the mistake that you mentioned). I can't check the GURPS Traveller book as it is packed away at the moment but then again I didn't comment on that in any case...

 

[GamerDude]

Why do you keep making this claim? You've made it before here, I pointed out that you were wrong, and asked you to show me where GURPS Traveller said that and you never did. That'd be because it's a completely false claim.

Gee dude, let me drop my life instead of the 15 minutes I get here and there and drop everything to search the reference down for you.

as a point, you sound EXACTLY like the asses I dealt with in the USAF who, knowing someone else was properly quoting regulations and tried side-tracking them by saying "show me where it says that" instead of showing where they were right.

Why don't you get up off your ass and prove me wrong instead of just bitching?

 

[EDG]

Why don't you get up off your ass and prove me wrong instead of just bitching?

I did, in the other thread - and all you did was flip me off there too. The onus is still on you to show why you think you're right though. And preferably do it in a way that isn't so damn rude.

This is my post from: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=469479#469479 and your responses after that.

At least in GT, a ships velocity is described in "Gs" as in how many gravities.

No, they're not. The ship's Acceleration is very clearly listed in Gs in the GT corebook. Look at all the ship stats, they give "Accel" in G and Top Air Speed in mph. Nowhere does it claim that the ship's velocity is in Gs.

SJG just don't make that kind of stupid mistake.

You later said you'd get round to it whenever you felt like it, but you couldn't be bothered at the time. And now here you are making the same erroneous claims. And I've had to waste my time finding my original request for a reference for your claims that you couldn't be arsed to track down at that time either.

It's really simple - if you can't be bothered to back up your claims, don't make them. Then you can stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[GamerDude]

I said GURPS, not GURPS Traveller. but that's ok. no page numbers. that's not proof it's just you doing what you are bitching at me for.

But, I did your work for you. It's G:Traveller pg 158. And yes you are correct. The GM I played under had showed me a reference at that time which backed up how he ran it, but I don't have that book to find that reference.

And yes SJ does make mistakes.

Ship maps/blueprints that claim "1 hex = 1 yard" then when you measure the size of the hexes on the map with the scale on the map you get "3 hexes = 3.5 yards" GT: Far Trader, Pg 101, Empress-Marava-Class Free Trader. Get out a ruler and measure the hexes against the scale. 3 hexes measured flat-side to flat-side cover 9mm in the plans. The scale on the diagram for 3m is 11 mm long. (this applies to all the deck plans in the book).

So which is it? which scale represent 3 yards? or is there some kind of 'fuzzy spacial distortions' affecting the printing process.

Oh, don't forget all the errors creeping in on the 3rd ed rules across all the books which made Compendiums 1 and 2 necessary.

BTW, I still play GURPS (4th Ed), still own many of the books, and still like the game, but don't go on a 'measuring contest' when it comes to finding errors. You're just lucky I can't find the generic GURPS reference I was mentioning, not that facts get in your way.

 

[EDG]

no page numbers. that's not proof

It's right there in black and white in all the damn books - G is acceleration in all the ship stats. Every single one of them.

But I see you've edited your post because you've finally got off your arse and had a look for yourself, and oh what a surprise - it turns out you were wrong. But I guess it's beyond you to apologise for misleading everyone and for insisting that you were right when you weren't.

But it seems you think I'm "bitching" to insist that you back up what you say, so I'll just let that speak for itself.

 

[GamerDude]

no page numbers. that's not proof

It's right there in black and white in all the damn books - G is acceleration in all the ship stats. Every single one of them.

So you are wrong. If you don't want to admit it then by all means, continue to make yourself look like a fool. But I am not going to waste any more of my life on you.

Ho Hum. I love how you act. I'm not allowed to say something without page numbers, but you can do it. boooring. You can't handle actually having to back up your claims if you don't respect whoever you are talking to. boooring. Had you given a page number the first time I would have just accepted it. Instead I did what YOU should have done, which is what you expect, others to either just accept your word as absolute fact of go out of their way to prove you wrong. boooring!

Oh, I gave the details showing your "SJ isn't stupid enough to make mistakes" just to make you happy. Of course you will probably find some way to dismiss a direct reference to an actual stupid error because you can't handle being wrong. again you are sooo BOOORRRINGG!

 

[EDG]

Oh, I gave the details showing your "SJ isn't stupid enough to make mistakes" just to make you happy.

Again, try reading what is said. I said "SJG just don't make that kind of stupid mistake." - by which I mean confusing acceleration with velocity. I never claimed that they don't make mistakes.

Also, I don't need page numbers to prove my point. Just saying "look at the ship stats" is good enough, because every ship stat says the same thing - that G is the acceleration. Other people said the same thing too. Like I said, you were the one making the claim that it wasn't, and whether you like it or not that means the onus was on you to back up your claims.

Either way your petty, childish, insulting responses speak for themselves, and it seems you have nothing better to do than start arguments with me (in multiple threads it seems. Not to mention the insults you sent via PM). So it's up to the mods now, and I'm sure Chris will be very happy to be interrupted from working on the book to deal with your idiocy.

 

[GamerDude]

Either way your petty, childish, insulting responses speak for themselves, and it seems you have nothing better to do than start arguments with me (in multiple threads it seems. Not to mention the insults you sent via PM). So it's up to the mods now, and I'm sure Chris will be very happy to be interrupted from working on the book to deal with your idiocy.

Ho Hum.. again the dirty old pot calling the slightly used kettle black. I did NOT start anything this time around (and you proved my point. I looked at your other post. NO page numbers there either just "it says what I say" without any pages cited. if you had cited the pages it would have been done, over, fini. YOU expect your very word to be the law handed down from GOD).

Listen, honestly. I'm not the only one who has pointed out IN PUBLIC your attitude, your tone, etc. Hell it was pointed out just the other day in another thread.

So please, stop harassing those who you don't agree with. You have a piece of paper saying you are supposed to be too smart to be doing that.

 

[hdrider67]

From Mongoose news:
Space combat is following a similar mold (with arguments raging about whether it should be more like Harrington or Star Wars!),

Wouldn't most Traveller veterans agree that combat should be more like Harrington then Star Wars?

I'm stating this from the viewpoint that Star Wars battles are more "dog-fightish", fast, furious vs Harrington battles that are less dynamic like old broad-side battles from the "Age of Sail". If this is what they meant, past Traveller fans should be more used to the Harrington model.

I like the Honorverse but I think I would compare Traveller to David Drakes RCN fighting styles (minus the people on deck running up sails) than the Honorverse. Drake's RCN series features ships with no shielding above their hulls, a broadside missile weapon, and the ships are less capable over vast distances. The energy mounts are mostly to force large mass missiles onto a different vector. There are pinnaces but no fighters and the pinnaces were pretty well useless against a ship of the line.

 

[Sturn]

I don't know anything about David Drake's RCN.

I do like the sense of "Age of Sail" in space though. I think that captures a part of the Traveller space battles I loved. I don't think it's realistic at all, don't really care. This is Traveller not 2300AD, Transhuman Space, or some other harder scifi.

Oh and thanks hdrider for attempting to get the topic back on track. I see the married couple are going at it over here too. :lol:

 

[GamerDude]

David Drake's (http://david-drake.com/bibliography.html) RCN is the Royal Cinnabon Navy. (possible bad spelling). The first book is "With the Lightnings" and introduces Lt. Leary, the central character of at least the first few books (I'm still on book 2, "Lt. Leary Commanding").

A list of the books in this series can be found at http://david-drake.com/RCN.html

For STL/Normal Space it is much like the Harringtonverse in that it is like the 'age of sail', in like that ships have momentum and a vector and don't turn on the dime due to inertial-less drives or some such thing.

A great game for realistic starship combat is the "Saganami Island Tactical Simulator" (or SITS) published by Ad Astra games (http://www.adastragames.com/products/adastra/sits.html). Once you get the hang of how it handles 3D combat (yes, 3D!) the game plays quickly and is quite a bit of fun.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Reality Dysfunction style combat is another paradigm we should consider.

 

[Deniable]

For anyone who wants to know about David Drake's RCN series or Weber's Honorverse Baenhas the first couple of each available in the Free Library. (Be ready to lose a lot of free time.)

You're looking for:

• Honorverse: (1) On Basilisk Station and (2) The Honor of the Queen
• RCN: (1) With the Lightnings and (2) Lt. Leary Commanding