Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Introducing myself
Next Message: Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...
Month Index: June, 1996

From:     Leroy Van Camp III <van891@??????.edu>
Date:     Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:  Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...

    Despite my attempt at calling a truce and ending this, it appears it
is turning into a squabble.

> >    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'm not sure what your point was.

> >    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.
>>  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.

    I don't see how common sense applies towards this.  It seems to me
that common sense would indicate that aerodynamics has nothing to do with
it, since their is no air to interact with in an appreciable way.

> 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.

    I did not say the authors poorly conceived the stuff.  I pointed out
that a section of the rules did not jibe with what was said before.
    Problems with my conceptual abilities?  I see you desire to turn this
whole thing into an attack.

> *All* I said was that it may have been you, and not the author.

    And you said it with an amazing lack of tact.

> >    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*?

    Contradictory to the section in the COAS that states that
maneuverability is a function of form and control devices.

> >    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.

    Well, it implies it to you, but not necessarily to me.  The
implications I got were that the sails manipulated the motive force of the
helm.  And the lack of air in space would imply that is has nothing to do
with aerodynamics.

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

    Sorry, but his is not completely true.  Under the description of major
and minor helms it says "This energy [channelled spell energy] is somewhat
useful for maneuvering the ship...".  The section on helms on pg. 8 also
says this.
    Here's a question... the WCC gives the option of not having any
rigging on a ship.  That is, no control devices.  So how does it steer?
The helm, right?  Now, you say that weight is a factor in MC because it is
harder to steer a ship that is heavier.
    Now, the ship has no rigging and only steers with the helm.  But helms
don't care about weight.  So, will the material of the ship still matter?
    The COAS also tells us that a ship without a functional helm has no
way of controlling its motion. (pg. 26)
    And what about cargo?  If you fill a cargo area to the max with slabs
of granite, what will this do?
    And why is a 6 ton stone ship the same MC as a 60 ton stone ship?
That's a pretty big margin.
    Take two ships, a 1 ton marble ship and a 100 ton thick pine ship,
both with standard rigging.  Under the WCC system they would have the same
maneuverability.  Now, marble weighs about 6 times more than pine*, but
that's a far cry from 100 times. Why would a ship that only weighs six
one-hundreths (about 1/16th) of another ship have the same MC?
    Now, if both ships were of the same size, say 50 tons, the marble ship
would have an MC of two less than the pine ship, yet the stone ship would
only be six time more heavy.
    So, why is it that a ship that is sixteen times heavier than another
has the same MC, but a ship that is only six times heavier has a two point
superior MC?

* white pine is 26 lbs per cubic foot, while marble is 160 lbs per cubic foot.

> >    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?

    How sails make a ship more maneuverable.  No one seems to have an
official answer for that.

> >    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.

    I never claimed they didn't exist, I said the seemed contradictory.
Becasue you don't find them so doesn't mean I can?

> >    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".

    Sorry, I was wrong on that, I didn't mean to put it that way.  The
book does say it, but I feel it does not jibe with other portions of the

    The whole problem here is that you have taken the information given
and formed a concept on how things work.  To you there is no confusion.
But someone comes along and points out something they feel doesn't quite
jibe, and you put your opinion forth as The Way It Is.
    I see the portion of the text that tells us that MC is based on form
and control, and that control devices "shape the helmsman spelljamming
ability" as a significant statement, while you feel that these statements
are only partially true, and is furt her defined by another section of the
book.  But you seem to have a problem acepting that my initial perception
as valid.
    The statements I have pointed out on a ship's maneuverability are the
ones that are central to my perceptions, so the later comments on weight
being a factor dosn't jibe.  It seems not all agree, which is fine, but
don't attempt to try and belittle my perceptions with comments like "it
may be a problem with your conceptual abilities."

	     		  Leroy Van Camp III
  	  owner-mystara-l@??.com         van891@??????.edu
     "You know, not kneeing you in the groin is a constant struggle."

Previous Message: Introducing myself
Next Message: Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...
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

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]