Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...
Next Message: Re: Comic Book (Was: Re: A New Class for
Month Index: June, 1996


From:     "Thomas O. Magann Jr." <tomjr@???.com>
Date:     Mon, 24 Jun 96 15:25:41 PDT
Subject:  Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...
>
>
>
>On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Thomas O. Magann Jr. wrote:
>
>> >> I take it that rigging doesn't boost
>> >> Manueverability in your world, either?

>    Interact aerodynamically with what?  The only air in space is that
>within the air envelop, and that moves with the ship; a ship does not
>"fight" its envelope.  It's not moving through it. I mean, if you pull a
>sail hard to port, what are you pulling against?  What force exerted on
>the sail will make the ship turn?

That was kind of my point, you know.

>    I don't recall the SJ stuff ever really clarifying how exactly sails
>and oars help maneuver a ship, but the implications are that they focus
>and manipulate the motive force of the helm.  I recall a discussion of
>this list quite some time ago, and that seemed to be the general
>concensus at the time.  So, how sails work is certainly a DM call.

Well, a little common sense would apply, as well. After all, Sails are made
to use air, oars, water. Hell, even a Gust of Wind spell improves
manueverability.

>> >    Yeah... that was my point.  That's why I call basing performance
stats
>> >on weight silly.  And the WCC construction rules base MC on material
type,
>> >and the chart would indicate it as a weight factor.  And the Stripping
>> >option, which the book indicates removes weight, increases MC.
>> >     (In defense of WCC, I have to point out that the Stripping option is
>> >also in the original set.  Seems even the original author couldn't get it
>> >straight.)
>>
>> Or you can't.
>
>    Why the confrontational attitude?

I don't know, why are you so confrontational?

You are making some broad statements, and tellings us how poorly the authors
concieved of the stuff, when it seems as though it may be a problem with your
conceptual abilities.

*All* I said was that it may have been you, and not the author. *You* made
the original comment about someone else, after all.

>> You've confused weight with Volume, and now you're talking
>> about stripping, which affects volume not at all, just weight and
>> manueverability. Volume remains the same.
>
>    I have made no such confusion.
>    In the WCC construction rules, a ship's MC is based on the materials
>it is constructed from, and the chart shows weight to be a factor.  If two
>ships are designed exactly the same, with the same men crewing it, with
>the same guy on the same helm, a shi p of stone is going to be less
>maneuverable.  And this seems contradictory to what has been said before.

Contradictory to *what*?  We're talking about a brand new design, after all,
not a refitted old design. Heavier materials *do* make for a clumsier
vehicle. When using an old design and replacing with a heavier material,
other modifications would obviously have to be made.

And the *original* rules make them. No change anywhere but in saves. Same AC,
which implies thinner, stronger, material and so weight is unchanged.

If you thicken the hull, for extra AC, you lose cargo due to decreased space,
but no manueverablity as it's not very much added weight, Certainly not as
much as replacing with a heavier material which could be 2-3 times the weight
instead of 1.2 times.

Plating adds much more weight, and reduces manueverability.

Seems fairly consistant to be. It's just been doen in more detail in the WCC.

>    In the COAS, in the Ships of Wildspace chapter, under the MC section,
>it says that maneuverability is a function of the ship's design/form and
>the controlling devics it has (sails, oars, etc.).  It makes no mention
>what so ever to weight.

No, but referencing those sails, oars etc, does seem to imply some degree of
aerodynamics.

Frankly, the rules seem a bit more consistant than you do. Which is no reason
to attack the author's abilities, or acuse someone of being confrontational,
because they don't see any evidence the inconsistancies you claim to.

>    Further in that chapter it talks about the various kinds of helms.
>And it never mentions weight as a limitaton, or even at all.  The tonnage
>of the ship is always what's important.
>    Now, the WCC comes along and says that weight is an MC determinant.

So? That's *not* inconstistant with volume (area of effect) of a Helm, or the
aid offered by rigging (surface area). Kind of "apples and oranges".

Weight *is* a factor in manueverability RW, and game, apparently.

>    And, as for stripping, that was my entire point.  All it does is
>decrease the weight of a ship.  It does not affect volume at all, and thus
>I feel should have no effect.

Well, it makes a ship lighter and so, easier to manuever. It also makes for a
weaker hull.

Makes perfect sense to me.

>> Any vehicle handles better if it's actual weight is reduced. Planes, cars,
>> boats, ships, etc.
>
>    Well, that's all well and good for the real world.  But these aren't
>cars, they are magical powered flying ships in fantasy space.  Ships
>powered by devices that perform based on volume, not weight.

Which addresses speed. In fact, that's all a helm addresses, speed and
volume. It has absolutely *nothing* whatsoever to do with manueverability.

In any SJ source I've read, which is all of them, and several of the Magazine
articles.

Yet you keep using it as a factor in manueverability.

What affects manueverability, starting in the basic set, and continuing
thru-out, is weight and rigging (and aerodymanic design, for some races).
Period.

It's stayed consistant from the Basic set on, and is based on the RW.

>    Before things break down into a squabble, I want to say that many
>aspects of the SJ setting and rules can easily be interpretted in a
>vartiety of was.  Some things are simply not clarified sufficiently.

For instance?

>    So, there is nothing wrong with saying weight is important, if one
>wishes to work that way. And there is nothing wrong with my
>interpretations.

Your interpretations ignorew basic factors that, above, you seemed to claim
didn't even exist. What seems to be wrong is the basis for them. If you'd
just said "because that's how I want it" instead of "because the authors made
a mistake" it would have been a touch different.

>    What it boils down to is preference.  I like the general feel of the
>original boxed set, and based by perceptions upon it.  And those
>perceptions did not include weight as a factor.

Yes, they did.Concordance pages 44-45, particularily "Plating" and
"Stripping".

 So, when WCC came along

And said the same thing in greater detail.

>and said that it was, I didn't like it, and ended up changing it.
>    And there is nothing wrong with that.
>


except for what you've said about the basic set, you're right.


Thank You For Your Time,

Thomas O Magann Jr
http://www.sfo.com/~tomjr/

<tomjr@???.com> or my back-up: <TMagann@???.com>




Previous Message: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...
Next Message: Re: Comic Book (Was: Re: A New Class for
Month Index: June, 1996

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...    Leroy Van Camp III    24 Jun 1996 22:15:04
Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    24 Jun 1996 22:25:41
Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...    Leroy Van Camp III    25 Jun 1996 02:09:11
Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    25 Jun 1996 02:16:15

[ SPJ-L@Cornell.edu ] [ Spelljammer@Leicester.ac.uk ] [ Spelljammer@MPGN.com ] [ Spelljammer-L@Oracle.Wizards.com ]