Slashdot Mirror

There is a very interesting discussion of realistic space combat from a board game called Attack Vector Tactical.

http://www.adastragames.com/products/adastra/av.html

The tutorial gets into a lot of what is going on and the energy levels required to achieve them.

http://www.adastragames.com/downloads/AVT_Tutorial.pdf

The biggest problem with really engaging in space combat is the energy required and the distances involved. Some of Larry Niven's Man Kzin wars stories (mostly written by other people) get into this a bit. Ships crank up to near C, accelerate a bunch of rocks to hit planets and zip through. You can't see them coming very well and you can't stop the rocks.

David Weber is the most entertaining writer to read. He follows good physics, but the energy output of any of his warships is so unrealistically high a single missile from the smallest Frigate is probably enough to destroy a planet. Seriously, excelerate a ton of mass to .5 C and hit something with it. I don't recall exactly, but missiles in the Honorverse can get pretty darn close to the speed of light. The other problem he has is convincing me that with all this stuff moving this fast that anybody can hit anything. But hey, I've read every book, loved each and everyone and am eagerly awaiting the next one due in March. (and if you search the attack vector tactical web site, they also have a game based on his universe and the AVT movement system)

There is a very interesting discussion of realistic space combat from a board game called Attack Vector Tactical.

http://www.adastragames.com/products/adastra/av.html

The tutorial gets into a lot of what is going on and the energy levels required to achieve them.

http://www.adastragames.com/downloads/AVT_Tutorial.pdf

The biggest problem with really engaging in space combat is the energy required and the distances involved. Some of Larry Niven's Man Kzin wars stories (mostly written by other people) get into this a bit. Ships crank up to near C, accelerate a bunch of rocks to hit planets and zip through. You can't see them coming very well and you can't stop the rocks.

David Weber is the most entertaining writer to read. He follows good physics, but the energy output of any of his warships is so unrealistically high a single missile from the smallest Frigate is probably enough to destroy a planet. Seriously, excelerate a ton of mass to .5 C and hit something with it. I don't recall exactly, but missiles in the Honorverse can get pretty darn close to the speed of light. The other problem he has is convincing me that with all this stuff moving this fast that anybody can hit anything. But hey, I've read every book, loved each and everyone and am eagerly awaiting the next one due in March. (and if you search the attack vector tactical web site, they also have a game based on his universe and the AVT movement system)

Airplanes have a constant flow of air to dump heat into. In space, you either need huge surface area (big radar cross section), a big internal store, or low power consumption. But you need big power consumption to move fast and do damage. An internal store will likely be needed for the times when you have to retract your heat spreaders due to enemy fire.

Read the Project Rho stuff (and Attack Vector Tactical) Very smart guys spending a lot of time thinking things out.

This is why the "realistic" space sim zealots will never be happy. If a company ever actually gave them the game they wanted, one that was truly realistic as per our current understanding of physics and such, it'd be way too boring to actually play.

As one of those "Space Realism Zealots" I can tell you flat out that you're wrong. Realism doesn't make the game boring, it makes the game different, and what I'm seeing you do, is equating different with bad.

A good example of how you can make realistic space combat fun would be the tabletop wargame Attack Vector: Tactical. Here are some battle reports to give an idea what it plays like.

Heck, the biggest complaint against AV:T has more to do with the rules being fairly complex than anything about the actual gameplay. Those same complex rules are easily dealt with when applied to a computer game. A computer can perform a range-angle lookup instantly and far more exactly than someone using a ruler and the supplied play aid for AV:T can.

As you can clearly see in the above links, there is nothing about realism that prevents you from maneuvering around and using tactics in space. You just didn't know it could be like that, and assumed all realistic space combat was boring. Space isn't like flight, and it isn't like sailing in the ocean or under the sea, or fighting on land, it's a completely different medium that has its own unique effects on the way combat would work. Just because it doesn't copy WWII naval battles doesn't mean it sucks.

This is why the "realistic" space sim zealots will never be happy. If a company ever actually gave them the game they wanted, one that was truly realistic as per our current understanding of physics and such, it'd be way too boring to actually play.

As one of those "Space Realism Zealots" I can tell you flat out that you're wrong. Realism doesn't make the game boring, it makes the game different, and what I'm seeing you do, is equating different with bad.

A good example of how you can make realistic space combat fun would be the tabletop wargame Attack Vector: Tactical. Here are some battle reports to give an idea what it plays like.

Heck, the biggest complaint against AV:T has more to do with the rules being fairly complex than anything about the actual gameplay. Those same complex rules are easily dealt with when applied to a computer game. A computer can perform a range-angle lookup instantly and far more exactly than someone using a ruler and the supplied play aid for AV:T can.

As you can clearly see in the above links, there is nothing about realism that prevents you from maneuvering around and using tactics in space. You just didn't know it could be like that, and assumed all realistic space combat was boring. Space isn't like flight, and it isn't like sailing in the ocean or under the sea, or fighting on land, it's a completely different medium that has its own unique effects on the way combat would work. Just because it doesn't copy WWII naval battles doesn't mean it sucks.

This is why the "realistic" space sim zealots will never be happy. If a company ever actually gave them the game they wanted, one that was truly realistic as per our current understanding of physics and such, it'd be way too boring to actually play.

As one of those "Space Realism Zealots" I can tell you flat out that you're wrong. Realism doesn't make the game boring, it makes the game different, and what I'm seeing you do, is equating different with bad.

A good example of how you can make realistic space combat fun would be the tabletop wargame Attack Vector: Tactical. Here are some battle reports to give an idea what it plays like.

Heck, the biggest complaint against AV:T has more to do with the rules being fairly complex than anything about the actual gameplay. Those same complex rules are easily dealt with when applied to a computer game. A computer can perform a range-angle lookup instantly and far more exactly than someone using a ruler and the supplied play aid for AV:T can.

As you can clearly see in the above links, there is nothing about realism that prevents you from maneuvering around and using tactics in space. You just didn't know it could be like that, and assumed all realistic space combat was boring. Space isn't like flight, and it isn't like sailing in the ocean or under the sea, or fighting on land, it's a completely different medium that has its own unique effects on the way combat would work. Just because it doesn't copy WWII naval battles doesn't mean it sucks.

This is why the "realistic" space sim zealots will never be happy. If a company ever actually gave them the game they wanted, one that was truly realistic as per our current understanding of physics and such, it'd be way too boring to actually play.

As one of those "Space Realism Zealots" I can tell you flat out that you're wrong. Realism doesn't make the game boring, it makes the game different, and what I'm seeing you do, is equating different with bad.

A good example of how you can make realistic space combat fun would be the tabletop wargame Attack Vector: Tactical. Here are some battle reports to give an idea what it plays like.

Heck, the biggest complaint against AV:T has more to do with the rules being fairly complex than anything about the actual gameplay. Those same complex rules are easily dealt with when applied to a computer game. A computer can perform a range-angle lookup instantly and far more exactly than someone using a ruler and the supplied play aid for AV:T can.

As you can clearly see in the above links, there is nothing about realism that prevents you from maneuvering around and using tactics in space. You just didn't know it could be like that, and assumed all realistic space combat was boring. Space isn't like flight, and it isn't like sailing in the ocean or under the sea, or fighting on land, it's a completely different medium that has its own unique effects on the way combat would work. Just because it doesn't copy WWII naval battles doesn't mean it sucks.

For those looking for a next generation game, check out Attack Vector: Tactical - http://www.adastragames.com/products/adastra/av.ht ml

These guys were giving demo games at Gen Con. It's the most realistic space combat game I've ever played. Full 3-dimensional movement, Newtonian physics and everything from laser fire to thrust has been accurately modeled. For example, when you fire a laser at a ship, you hit the area of the ship facing the laser. Equipment in that area of the ship is what takes damage. When you exceed the hull depth of that area and still have damage points remaining from the laser, you proceed through the ship to the next area for damage calculation. You can actually have lasers entering and exiting a ship, doing the requisite damage to areas they pass through. And don't even get me started on missiles, coil guns and nuclear warheads.

I should add that this is not a game for beginners. It's a demanding game with charts and look-up tables, but it's oh so wonderful the first time you maneuver your 5000 ton Rafik Mk1 onto just the right attack vector and let loose your firepower into the enemy's soft underbelly! So if you think D20 is for simpletons, give this game a try.

The March Upcountry series is actually quite good. It reads like more of Ringo's work than Weber's, for what that's worth. The series works out to be a pretty good coming of age tale, and the paeans to the martial virtues are not overblown. I caught the first two books when they were in the free library and then bought the last two.

Ahh Starfire. The original pocket edition is one of the best games of its generation. It hasn't stood up well - although I prefer the 2d6 weapon rolls to the 1d10 just because I love the feel of the 2d6 bell curve- so I'm playing Full Thrust these days, predominantly online with FTJava - multiplayer, transport over email so not realtime, fog of war, and fighters coming this week in the 1.0 release. Starfire was cursed with mediocre expansions and overcomplex campaign games. Weber came along for the 2nd edition and rewrote the game to be more complex to handle the large battles he wanted (yes, that's what happened). And he wrote novels. They degenerated into one massive assault through a warp point after another. There's no ftl travel, you go through warp poitns and come out in another system. And they're easily defended with vast minefields and ginormous fortresses. Ungameably ugly in my opinion, you're forced into brute force up-the-middle attacks. This forces fleet sizes upwards to sustain the horrific casualty rates (90% attrition in fighter units in battle after battle, 90% percent people. Add in an even more extreme version of the technological one-upmanship in the Honor Harrington books and you get a really flashy strategic situation that's utterly boring to play.

On the other hand, the game for the Honor Harrington series is based on the excellent Attack Vector, which manages to put 3d Newtonian space combat on the tabletop. They're calling it the Saganami Island Tactical Simulator and yes, I do have a (small, non-financial) interest in the company. It's on my Christmas list for myself, just ordered it now (yes, I've been good).

The March Upcountry series is actually quite good. It reads like more of Ringo's work than Weber's, for what that's worth. The series works out to be a pretty good coming of age tale, and the paeans to the martial virtues are not overblown. I caught the first two books when they were in the free library and then bought the last two.

Ahh Starfire. The original pocket edition is one of the best games of its generation. It hasn't stood up well - although I prefer the 2d6 weapon rolls to the 1d10 just because I love the feel of the 2d6 bell curve- so I'm playing Full Thrust these days, predominantly online with FTJava - multiplayer, transport over email so not realtime, fog of war, and fighters coming this week in the 1.0 release. Starfire was cursed with mediocre expansions and overcomplex campaign games. Weber came along for the 2nd edition and rewrote the game to be more complex to handle the large battles he wanted (yes, that's what happened). And he wrote novels. They degenerated into one massive assault through a warp point after another. There's no ftl travel, you go through warp poitns and come out in another system. And they're easily defended with vast minefields and ginormous fortresses. Ungameably ugly in my opinion, you're forced into brute force up-the-middle attacks. This forces fleet sizes upwards to sustain the horrific casualty rates (90% attrition in fighter units in battle after battle, 90% percent people. Add in an even more extreme version of the technological one-upmanship in the Honor Harrington books and you get a really flashy strategic situation that's utterly boring to play.

On the other hand, the game for the Honor Harrington series is based on the excellent Attack Vector, which manages to put 3d Newtonian space combat on the tabletop. They're calling it the Saganami Island Tactical Simulator and yes, I do have a (small, non-financial) interest in the company. It's on my Christmas list for myself, just ordered it now (yes, I've been good).

Just a quick plug:

Attack Vector: Tactical is a hard-science wargame that actually manages 3d vector-movement in a tabletop game. It really is rocket science, but the designer worked prodigies to get it workable in a game you can actually play.

Their second game (August 05) will be based on the Honor Harrington series. The Saganami Island Tactical Simulator will use the same system and be supported by a line of miniatures.

All the physics geeks and all the space combat geeks need to check this stuff out. Their What's New page has daily updates of real space travel news.

Just a quick plug:

Attack Vector: Tactical is a hard-science wargame that actually manages 3d vector-movement in a tabletop game. It really is rocket science, but the designer worked prodigies to get it workable in a game you can actually play.

Their second game (August 05) will be based on the Honor Harrington series. The Saganami Island Tactical Simulator will use the same system and be supported by a line of miniatures.

All the physics geeks and all the space combat geeks need to check this stuff out. Their What's New page has daily updates of real space travel news.

Just a quick plug:

Attack Vector: Tactical is a hard-science wargame that actually manages 3d vector-movement in a tabletop game. It really is rocket science, but the designer worked prodigies to get it workable in a game you can actually play.

Their second game (August 05) will be based on the Honor Harrington series. The Saganami Island Tactical Simulator will use the same system and be supported by a line of miniatures.

All the physics geeks and all the space combat geeks need to check this stuff out. Their What's New page has daily updates of real space travel news.

I like Bigelow as well. Some have compared him to Delos D. Harriman from the Robert Heinlein classic THE MAN WHO SOLD THE MOON.

According to the Popular Science article, Bigelow wanted to develop space from the time he was a young man. He studied business in college with the specific goal of earning enough money to fund space expansion.

For a similar vision of a viable business plane for space, read The Rocket Company

As a matter of fact, the Europeans are expecting the US to hold up its end of the bargain. They spent millions of dollars on the ESA lab module for the ISS, and due to the grounding of the Shuttle fleet, it is on the ground gathering cobwebs. What is really angering the ESA is NASA toying with the idea of breaking their contract by permanently grounding the Shuttle fleet and never lofting the lab.

Without the Russian's heavy lift capacity for re-supply, the ISS would have to be abandoned, which entails a large risk that the station would undergo a catastrophic failure. NASA would actually like to pay the Russians and have the funds to do so. Unfortunately, there is a slight obstacle in the form of the Iran non-Proliferation Agreement of 2000.

As a matter of fact, the Europeans are expecting the US to hold up its end of the bargain. They spent millions of dollars on the ESA lab module for the ISS, and due to the grounding of the Shuttle fleet, it is on the ground gathering cobwebs. What is really angering the ESA is NASA toying with the idea of breaking their contract by permanently grounding the Shuttle fleet and never lofting the lab.

Without the Russian's heavy lift capacity for re-supply, the ISS would have to be abandoned, which entails a large risk that the station would undergo a catastrophic failure. NASA would actually like to pay the Russians and have the funds to do so. Unfortunately, there is a slight obstacle in the form of the Iran non-Proliferation Agreement of 2000.

What I find interesting is how the Triton combines two great concepts in nuclear thermal propulsion, the LANTR afterburner and the Bimodal power concept.

Take a look at Delta V.