When "real" is just none big pain in the ...

[rust]

Overall, 2300AD is 10 times more realistic than the Traveller Universe, 1,000 times more realistic than Star Trek, and 1,000,000 times more realistic than Star Wars. And despite the errors and contradictions, most of which arise due to numerous authors who didn't take the time to make sure their material meshed with what others had written, 2300AD is also more logically consistent than all of the above mentioned sci-fi settings by a wide margin.

I would agree concerning the natural sciences, my main problems with
2300AD are the absolutely ridiculous future history the authors created
with their Great Game obviously based on a Europe at the time of the
Napoleonic Wars and their equally ridiculous use of German in naming
planets and starships. To play 2300AD with German players one has to
change most of the game's background history and almost all of the Ger-
man names or risks to be laughed out of the room as the referee. As an
example, I could perhaps accept the density of Heidelsheimat with a few
handwaves, but the name "Heidelsheimat" is definitely a no-go. Add a
"Vogelperspektive" class ship in orbit around "Heidelsheimat" and it re-
quires some buckets of beer and a truckload of pretzels to make the ga-
me playable. Fortunately the necessary changes are rather easy.

 

[kermit]

I would agree concerning the natural sciences, my main problems with
2300AD are the absolutely ridiculous future history the authors created
with their Great Game obviously based on a Europe at the time of the
Napoleonic Wars and their equally ridiculous use of German in naming
planets and starships. To play 2300AD with German players one has to
change most of the game's background history and almost all of the Ger-
man names or risks to be laughed out of the room as the referee. As an
example, I could perhaps accept the density of Heidelsheimat with a few
handwaves, but the name "Heidelsheimat" is definitely a no-go. Add a
"Vogelperspektive" class ship in orbit around "Heidelsheimat" and it re-
quires some buckets of beer and a truckload of pretzels to make the ga-
me playable. Fortunately the necessary changes are rather easy.

The future history of 2300AD is ultimately tied to the Cold War perspective of its original creators. Twilight: 2000 and the first version of the Twilight War shapes the game's background and despite the rewrites by Colin the legacy of that event is forever part of the setting. As a Cold War military scenario the Twilight War is not too bad. I think something like Red Storm Rising may be a bit more likely to have happened but its arguable either way. My primary gripe is that the back history is so poorly fleshed out that having France remain the sole superpower for 300 years appears to a bit of a stretch. I added a failed German revolt (2148-2152), yes its a re-do of the Revolutions of 1848, and a few failed countries as well (Confederated Republics of the Danube - consisting of Austria, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Croatia, and Hungary; Iberian Federation - Spain, Catalonia, and Portugal; Ruritania - a small country formed south of Bayern by left behind American troops and a few others).

Even so the background is still better than the Third Imperium which has thousands of years of stagnant tech, almost no social development and xenobiologists who are complete and utter morons.

As for the German names. Well, languages drift and there is a good chance German has changed thanks to the Twilight War and time. I visited West Germany in April of 1990 and was just in Bayern (Würzburg) two weeks ago. In those twenty-three years the language has already changed. There are fewer S-sets and far more loan words. It took me a bit to realize what a "handy" was.

Benjamin Lecrone

P.S. - I'm moving to Würzburg in two weeks. I noticed you were in Germany, but your on the far side of Bayern. Too bad. Maybe we can meet in München for a bier.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

My main problems with 2300AD are the absolutely ridiculous future history the authors created
with their Great Game obviously based on a Europe at the time of the Napoleonic Wars

The future history of 2300AD is ultimately tied to the Cold War perspective of its original creators. Twilight: 2000 and the first version of the Twilight War shapes the game's background and despite the rewrites by Colin the legacy of that event is forever part of the setting. As a Cold War military scenario the Twilight War is not too bad. I think something like Red Storm Rising may be a bit more likely to have happened but its arguable either way.

In this case history is written by the initial conditions, biases and the players involved. I have been reading the 2300 CDROM. The Game is set after the Twilight War of Twilight 2000 as there America is split between three different players. The played countries were:
(Mexico, Romania, and India)
(Russia, Zimbabwe, and Canada)
(Cuba, the Ukraine, and Australia)
(United Kingdom, Algeria and Manchuria)
(Venezuela, Italy, Iran, and Angola)
(France, Argentina, and Israel)
(Milgov of U.S., Poland, and Canton)
(Azania, Japan, Bolivia, and Egypt)
(Civgov of U.S., Sweden, and Nigeria)
(Brazil, Spain, and Turkey)
(New America, Germany, and Indonesia)
My knowledge of geo-politics of the 1980's is not that good and I do not have too many books of Twilight:2000, but where is Pakistan, the Koreas, Phillipines, (insert country you think needs have been there)?

 

[Nathan Brazil]

And then with tantalum found in specific areas (with relative amounts):
Chile: 1
French Guyana: 1
Brazil: 6
Spain: 9
Portugal: 6
Nigeria: 4
South Africa: 9
Zambia: 5
Namibia: 1
Mozambique: 17
Malaguay Rep: 2
Australia: 5
Turkestan (USSR): 3
China: 2
Kenya: 4
Zaire: 5
Oh, and all the names are 1980s' I guess.

 

[rust]

Oh, and all the names are 1980s' I guess.

When it comes to Germany, one gets the impression that they are
actually much older. The German "nations" mentioned in the original
version are Bavaria, Hanover, Westphalia, Saxony and Brandenburg,
which looks very much like a map from about the Napoleonic Age.
And then we have Bavaria, which has somehow annexed Baden--
Württemberg, as an ally of France and Russia against Manchuria,
and a German War of Reunification against an alliance led by Han-
over. :shock:

This feels as plausible as a fictional history where New Mexico an-
nexes Arizona, forming a spacefaring nation which allies with Mexi-
co and Brazil to fight Argentina and then fights an American War of
Reunification against an alliance led by Wyoming.

 

[coldwar]

I'm not too smart but I find these games fun still. Know some basics but that's about it.

The thing I ask myself when creating something is, "Is it plausible, even remotely." Why I ask that to myself is, most things we keep discovering in the real world we never thought as actually possible. Black holes, Jupiter's closest moon (forgotten her name) and many of the other moons in just our own system as just a few examples.

Things I never allow, 1-g ships near a large gas giant as an example. (You could go near it, but you'll likely die crashing in to it unless you manage to double your thrust very quickly.)

 

[F33D]

Things I never allow, 1-g ships near a large gas giant as an example. (You could go near it, but you'll likely die crashing in to it unless you manage to double your thrust very quickly.)

??? It isn't thrust but the velocity you have when getting near it. If you are at orbital speed you can accelerate with a 1G drive up to escape velocity.

 

[coldwar]

I would allow a 1-G capable ship to perform distant orbits of a Large Gas Giant, where an escape velocity can be made.
However closer orbits wouldn't allow an escape velocity. (Including skimming a large gas giant for a 1-g ship) To put it in to perspective, Jupiter has a gravity of 2.5. (near to, correct if I'm completely wrong) A sustainable orbit allowing escape velocity for a ship able to perform 1-g levels of thrust would only be able to orbit to where Jupiter's gravity falls low enough to allow it. On the other hand, if it went in to perform skimming the ship wouldn't be able to escape.

There is a solution to gain a closer orbit though, by obviously having a larger pre-orbit velocity to compensate but the downside would be that the ship would be under much more structural stress, and the crew would also likely feel this physical stress as well. But this would, in my belief, not allow any skimming operation to be performed safely.

 

[Wil Mireu]

There is a solution to gain a closer orbit though, by obviously having a larger pre-orbit velocity to compensate but the downside would be that the ship would be under much more structural stress, and the crew would also likely feel this physical stress as well. But this would, in my belief, not allow any skimming operation to be performed safely.

A ship that is merely travelling at high velocity won't have any structural stresses on it - it could be travelling at half the speed of light and it'll be fine (micrometeoroid impacts notwithstanding). It'll only be stressed when it accelerates under its own power - the acceleration is what causes the physical stress, not the velocity.

 

[F33D]

I would allow a 1-G capable ship to perform distant orbits of a Large Gas Giant, where an escape velocity can be made.
However closer orbits wouldn't allow an escape velocity.<snip>

No. You don't understand the mechanics involved here. Orbiting is done in "free fall".

 

[coldwar]

i'm not talking about stress from velocity, i mention stress in maintaining the orbit by applying thrust against another force, Gravity, which cause's physical stress.

To put it simply, when ever you would be correcting a close orbit of a large gas giant you are causing much more physical stress to the ship and those with in, as compared to a source of gravity comparable to a small gas giant or Earth.

Thus my statement is correct in the regard that they would experience more physical/structural stress.

 

[F33D]

To put it simply, when ever you would be correcting a close orbit of a large gas giant you are causing much more physical stress to the ship and those with in, as compared to a source of gravity comparable to a small gas giant or Earth.

Thus my statement is correct in the regard that they would experience more physical/structural stress.

Nope. The max stress from that maneuver would be the limit of the drive thrust. While in orbit you are in free fall. You need to study that subject before you dig yourself in deeper.

 

[Wil Mireu]

i'm not talking about stress from velocity, i mention stress in maintaining the orbit by applying thrust against another force, Gravity, which cause's physical stress.

If you're applying thrust, you're accelerating. That acceleration is what causes the physical stress.

To put it simply, when ever you would be correcting a close orbit of a large gas giant you are causing much more physical stress to the ship and those with in, as compared to a source of gravity comparable to a small gas giant or Earth.

You would need more thrust to counter the more massive planet's gravity, but you don't need to apply thrust to maintain an orbit unless some other external force is changing it (e.g. atmospheric drag, if the orbit is low enough). Otherwise an orbit around a planet will be stable.

Thus my statement is correct in the regard that they would experience more physical/structural stress.

I think you're getting confused about several things here. Any thrust (acceleration) causes stress on a ship because forces are being applied to it.

 

[F33D]

coldwar, maybe a known analogy will help you. While in orbit, how much G stress is the I.S.S. under?

Now, if the ISS were to accelerate at 1/10 G until it reached escape velocity from Earth, how many G's would the crew feel? <answer, the ship & crew would experience 1/10th of a G>

 

[coldwar]

I'm not confused

acceleration causes stress how many times have i mentioned that. It changes your VELOCITY.

or i just dont speak well enough for u

 

[F33D]

I'm not confused

acceleration causes stress how many times have i mentioned that. It changes your VELOCITY.

or i just dont speak well enough for u

:roll: :lol:

 

[coldwar]

Ok, whilst i took a little time to myself, thought things a little bit over. In basic principal I wouldn't let a 1-G (Thrust 1) skim capable ship to skim large gas giants.
Might be disagreeable, but that what seems plausible to me.

 

[Jeraa]

Ok, whilst i took a little time to myself, thought things a little bit over. In basic principal I wouldn't let a 1-G (Thrust 1) skim capable ship to skim large gas giants.
Might be disagreeable, but that what seems plausible to me.

Why? Uranus is a gas giant, with a surface gravity of only 0.89. Neptune (also a gas giant) is 1.14, and Saturn 1.07. (Jupiter is 2.53.) Nothing (as far as I know) says gas giant refueling must be done at the massive gas giants.

Edit: Well, you did say you wouldn't let them do it from large gas giants. Missed that on the first read through.

 

[F33D]

Ok, whilst i took a little time to myself, thought things a little bit over. In basic principal I wouldn't let a 1-G (Thrust 1) skim capable ship to skim large gas giants.
Might be disagreeable, but that what seems plausible to me.

With a GG that has >1 G it could be problematic if a 1G M-drive ship loses too much velocity while in atmosphere skimming. This would be more likely the deeper they went into the soup.

 

[spirochete]

I would allow a 1-G capable ship to perform distant orbits of a Large Gas Giant, where an escape velocity can be made.
However closer orbits wouldn't allow an escape velocity.<snip>

No. You don't understand the mechanics involved here. Orbiting is done in "free fall".

Traveller is a great game and all, but I must say it has gone a long way in dumbing-down the layman referee's grasp of basic science, especially spaceflight.