Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

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

From:     "Thomas O. Magann Jr." <tomjr@???.com>
Date:     Mon, 24 Jun 96 19:16:15 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.

You attempted to call a truce? When? I remember you implying I was
confrontational, because I disagreed with you, and had some facts you'd
ignored, but that was about it.

>> >    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.

You said you could see how aerodynamics would work in space. I asked if you
also forwent the bonus to MAN based on extra rigging, as it used the same

Apparently you didn't read my post any better than the basic set that you
erroneously used to support certain points.

>> >    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
>> 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.

Then you don't use the rigging bonus? You still haven't answered. The
question was whether you did or not, as you've excluded all other bonuses
based on such qualities as atmoshperics and aerodynamics.

You know, if you'd simply answered, instead of giving reasons to support an
answer you never gave, and attributing problems to the authors that they
don't seem to have....

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

No, you said: "Seems even the original author couldn't get it straight".
Seems as though you're commenting on his ability to conceptualize the
situation. You seem to be the one getting personal here. I'm simply
addressing certain inaccurate facts you've presented in lieu of a simple
answer to a simplew and straight forward question.

And I still have no idea why.

>> *All* I said was that it may have been you, and not the author.
>    And you said it with an amazing lack of tact.

Sure. And yet, more than you used, if you insist on getting personal.

>> >    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
>> >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
>> 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.

you've ignored the affects of the Gust OF Wind spells. Same book, page 81.

What it says in Chapter 3, that you mentioned above, under Maneuverabilty, on
page 25, is that the hull design of the ship, and the controlling devices
control Man.

Weight based on type and quantity of material, as well as shape, go into the

It doesn't say "form".

Later in the same chapter it directly address he effect of weight, as I
pointed out before.

>> 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.

Sure, and the sectioned about unmanned rigging, on page 60-61 gives us an
idea of how little a Helm can do. With at least one crewman left, -3 MAN.
With none, -4, or worse, I would imagine. Not very much contribution at all,
is it?

>    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.

Well, if you've decided to ignore areodynamics, yes, but that rule takes into
account certain aspects you don't use, and makes a Viper possible.

If you are going to use the rules in the book for your examples, remember to
use them in the context written. A Viper is listed as a special *HULL*
design. Page 63, the chart under Human (general).

So even the WCC makes it clear that it's *NOT* a function of the Helm, but
the Hull design.

Which agrees with the basic set in all particulars.

Admittedly, the Viper is my example, not yours, but it *is* the perfect
example of what you were addressing. And the book makes it clear that it's
Hull, not Helm.

>    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)

Well, obviously. How well can you steer your car when the engines dead?
Especially with power steering?

Now extend that to something that needs 1/4 of a Nautical mile to make any
direction changes at all, instead of a few feet.

>    And what about cargo?  If you fill a cargo area to the max with slabs
>of granite, what will this do?

Reduce the space you have for food. Helms are Area effect, not Weight affect,
 as I've already pointed out.

>    And why is a 6 ton stone ship the same MC as a 60 ton stone ship?
>That's a pretty big margin.

It's not, unless the have identical shapes and designed, except for size.
Don't forget the chart on page 63. Most races have some ability to design
differences in ships. Smaller ships are designed for manueverality, larger
for other uses, war or cargo, generally.

Also remember, h=just because *you* don't use aerodynamics, doesn't mean that
the rest of us don't, or that the rules weren't built to take this into
account. The ratio of weight to surface area has some effect also. Bigger
ships of similar designs, would have the same ratio.

Hertofore, we been refering to a similar size, and the difference a heavier
or lighter material would make, including stripping. When you discuss
different sizes, other factors come into play.

And even a sixty ton shipo is pretty cloes in size to a 6 ton ship, when
Manueverability is calculated in quter mile units.

>    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?

Both the same shape? The same AC?

BTW, I just checked. They don't have the same manueverability using standard
rules and ACs. The 1 ton stone is class E, the 100 ton pine (a light wood, I
believe) is a D.

There *is* a 4 point difference in AC. The smaller ship is *much heavier than
the larger, in relation to it's surface area, and moves more slowly.

Weight does seem to have an affect on Man, when the areodynamics are taken
into account, as the rules seem to do.

Seems consistant to me.

>    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.

And 4 points of extra AC.

BTW, what's your sourxe for the relative densities of Marble and Pine? My
source doesn't have Marble listed, but the figures agree for Granite.

>    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

BYW, what makes you think that the same amount (by volume) of the stronger is
needed for the improvements given?

Couldn't they be using nearly the same weight, and less volume, for the
improvements listed? They don't really say. What they give us is the base
price for tha material used, not the amount needed.

In fact, looking at the chart, under precious metal, it seems that they do
use differing amounts of differing materials.

Silver, gold, and electrum seem to be in identical amounts, but are all
relatively soft materials.

Copper costs slightly more than half of silver to use, but as coins, they
have a 10 to 1 ratio. It seems more copper is needed than the other commonly
coined metals.

Based on coin conversions again (and remember, 50 coins to the pound, for
weight) 4/5ths as much Platinum is needed as Gold.

Based purely on this chart, which allows us to calculate weight ratios for
hulls built of certain materials, it can be determined that less of some
materials are needed, by weight, to achive the desired effects, so you're
complaint about relative weights, based soley on construction materials
doesn't seem to bear scrutiny either. Sorry.

>> >    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.

True, but weight and how it applies to manueverability certainly seems clear.
If you look thru everything. The WCC says the same things as the Basic set,
but in more detail, and what much of what i t doesn't spell out can be
gleamed froma casual perusal of the charts.

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

You said that certain things weren't addressed in the Basic set. I gave you
the page numvbers that *did* address them. The references (did* exist, and
you *did8 claim that they didn't. Sorry.

You based the "contradictions" on the missing passages. The ones that
*aren't* missing, and say the same thing as the WCC.

I hardly find two sources that say the same thing to be contradictory. If
*you* find them so, possibly you need to re-read them.

>> >    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

I see you have re-read them.

Which portions? I find nothing in conflict with it, and some in agreement.

>    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.

No, some one came along saying it was confusing, and blaming it on facts not
in the books, although the claim seemed to have been made that it was, and on
facts that *weren't* in the books, althoiugh they were, in fact, present.

*That's* what I object to. There *IS* a difference, you know.

And all I orginally did was asked if you used the riggin mods to MAN. And it
felt as though your response was somewhat hostile.

And you still haven't answered the question, just claimed I made it personal,
because of my reaction to *your* response to the question.

You then made many faulty claims, based on partial facts, and the like, and I
filled in the gaps. Those gaps were somewaht necessary to support your
claims, but that's hardly a reason to complain because some one else paid
more attebtion to the books than you did.

>    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.

Again, it doesn't say "form" it says "design" At least that section you
directed me to earlier. This is what I mean. Form implies shape only, Designe
take much more into account, and fills in the gap you've made by misquoting.

As for Shaping the spelljammimg ability, yes that's very telling. In a
discussion of how a Helm gets it's "fuel". Because that's what it refers to,
converting stored spell energy into motive force. It doesn't have any place
in a discussion of Manueverability except to confuse matters.

Your initial perceptions, are just that, initial. Further reflection might do
you some good. You have a problem accepting that fuel doesn't relate to
manueverability, or that Helms are clearly area effect, and not weight
dependent. you seem to need to re-read your mnaterials, because you *do* seem
to be confusing quite different aspects of the mechanice=s involved.

>    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."

Unfortunately, you keep reinforcing that likelyhood. You're consistantly
confusing unrelated issues such as the workings of a Helm, and

And you keep claiming all this to be initial perceptions. Maybe the very fact
that you are relating the unrelated, and finding inconsistancies means you
need to spend some more time reading the books and getting past the initial.

Thank You For Your Time,

Thomas O Magann Jr

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

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

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]