🚀 go-pugleaf

TRES Lt. Cmdr. Bane (dal...@mi.net) wrote:
:  Who do you think would win if the United Federation of Planets was in place 
: of the Terran Confederation in the WC universe and they were at war with the 
: Kilrathi?

The kitties would kick the UFP's peace-mongering, bore-them-with-talk
rear ends! :)

Scott

poke...@ix.netcom.com(Lee Hutchinson ) writes:

>You can't transport anitmatter without EXTENSIVE (read: dry-dock)
>modifications to the entire transporter system (cited from the ST:TNG
>Tech Manual)

Baloney.  Kirk once transported down to a planet with an anti-matter 
container to destroy a blood-sucking cloud thing.  Don't you 
just hate it when writers can't keep their universes straight?  :-) :-)

>Want to see some cool-looking aliens?  Play "The Dig."  The Cocytans
>look COOL...

Are they "live action video", or animated?

Gary

>
> Who do you think would win if the United Federation of Planets was in
>place of the Terran Confederation in the WC universe and they were at
>war with the Kilrathi?

    The Kilrathi, of COURSE!  Take a look at the operating proced's of
Starfleet.  They wait until their shields are at 5% before they start
firing, at which point they have about 2 shots before their "phaser
relays" burn out.  They also have that stupid prime directive.  That
means they wouldn't even consider destroying an ENTIRE PLANET to win a
war!  I think that the WC book "Fleet Action" shows what the UFP would
have happen to them.  They would be more than happy to go for peace,
then get toasted when the new "ally" attacked. Confed all the way!

                                                        Bman

Cha...@ix.netcom.com (Clay Cahill) writes:

[stuff about ST:TNG tech manual being ST canon]

>>From what I understand, you are right. Okuda was sanctioned by both
>Gene and Rick (Berman... two close personal friends of mine... yes, I
>reach beyond the grave on this one) t okeep technical continuity on
>the show to the point where he could order major re-writes and kill
>ideas that couldn't be explained... So when Wesley beamed to that lame
>duck ship for the war game with his anti-matter class project (not to
>mention James Kirk's vampire cloud episode), then Okuda's credibility
>was instantly lost because he approved the tech in the script and then
>said you couldn't do it.

Thanks.  I remembered the vampire cloud, but I had forgotten about Wesley's
science project (I tend to forget a lot about episodes featuring Wesley). :-)
Obviously Wesley hadn't read the tech manual yet, so of course nothing bad
happened to him (rats!). :-)

>So therefore, I win!

>So nanny nanny boo-boo to you too!

I gotta remember that one. :-)

Gary

>>But of course look at all the damage the Kilrathi could do if they
>>suddenly jumped beyond UFP lines into Vulcan or Earth orbit for
>>example, thus Jump Drive is a far better tactical advantage in the
>>Kilrathi favor.
>
>Nahh.... Starfleet isn't that stupid.

    I dunno about that.  If anyone's read the history of Confed in the
manuals, they'll know that the Kilrathi did actually did use that
tactic against Confed in the early years of the war.  They popped out
right near Earth and hit "major defensive cities" such as Bern, New
York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, and a few others.  I think that if
Confed, an actual military didn't see that coming, then Starfleet
(whose motto is "make love, not war") wouldn't have a chance.

                                                        Bman

In article <4d3uo2$i...@cloner3.netcom.com> poke...@ix.netcom.com(Lee Hutchinson ) writes:
>From: poke...@ix.netcom.com(Lee Hutchinson )
>Subject: Re: Wing Commander vs. Star Trek
>Date: 11 Jan 1996 21:16:50 GMT

>In <DL1A4...@cunews.carleton.ca> djk...@chat.carleton.ca (Daniel
>King) writes: 
>>Star Trek Universe                     Wing Commander Universe
>>-warp drive                            -jump points
>>       -useful in combat                       -good for running away
>>       -almost every ship can have it.         -good for suddenly
>being
>>       -requires time to travel.                THERE, so instantaneous.

>Yes, but you can only jump sequential star system in WC.

>>-transporter technology                        -no transporter technology.
>>       -transport a tac nuke or anti-
>>        matter bomb aboard a Cruiser
>>        and BOOM.
I know this is kinda a dumb thread but here goes.

>You can't transport anitmatter without EXTENSIVE (read: dry-dock)
>modifications to the entire transporter system (cited from the ST:TNG
>Tech Manual)
Still,a nuke isn't antimatter is it?
I don't understand why they don't use nukes on Star Trek anymore...  the last 
time I saw what seemed like a nuke was on the Voyager premier with those 
Tri-Cobalt devices...
Nukes are cheap and easy to produce, especially for an organization like 
Microsoft...er... Starfleet


>>-incredibly powerful shields.          -capital ships don't HAVE
>shields.

>Hell yes the WC cap ships have shields!  Granted, they don't last too
>long before the power of the Almighty CTRL-W, but still...

>Otherwise, excellent points.


>>C'mon!  Rent an imagination!  I wanna see four legs, slugs, worms,
>snakes,
>>ten legs, a hundred legs, I wanna see sentient insects ACTING like
>>sentient insects would!  Do some research!  Hire some people who could
>>potentially give you some insight into just WHAT COULD evolve under
>>certain conditions...sheesh.

>Want to see some cool-looking aliens?  Play "The Dig."  The Cocytans
>look COOL...

>-- 
>Lee Hutchinson
>Poke...@ix.netcom.com
>"One hundred and six miles to Chicago; we got a full tank of gas, a half-
>pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."

>"Hit it."

On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, The Trader wrote:

> What about Wing Ships Vs. Battlestar Galactica ships?  
> At least they both use fighters.
> Trader

Hiya Trader,

	Wow that's a toughie.  The BG Vipers are cool fighters too.  I 
think it would be a tough call.  Oh BTW have you noticed how the Cylon 
ships look a bit like the Dralthis in WC?  I wonder if it ever crossed 
Chris Roberts' mind.

	Flamers ignored:  This is a lighthearted thread and should not be 
taken seriously.   Otherwise, seek professional help.

TRH Sends
________________________________________________________________
Thomas Russell Hong
Columbia University in the City of New York
Department of Biological Sciences
email: th...@columbia.edu

In article <4dt2qg$m...@bud.shadow.net> bra...@shadow.net (Braden N. McDaniel) writes:
>djk...@chat.carleton.ca (Daniel King) wrote:
>>-unrealistic in extremis.		-more realistic, but they still use
>>					 artificial gravity instead of 
>>					 rotating sectional ships.
>
>The consideration (or lack thereof) of gravity in places like capital
>ships and space stations is not nearly so irksome to me as the way
>games like WC and X-Wing have fighters maneuvering. They way they let
>you move, you'd have G-forces slinging you every which way. And at the
>speeds you move at, you'd end up splattered all over the cockpit at
>the end of a mission.
>
>If the fighters moved like jets in sims (that is, u/d control pitch,
>and l/r control roll), at least all the Gs would be oriented through a
>vertical cross-section of the cockpit. There should still be a speed
>limit in turns such that one would not become a greasy spot embedded
>in the upholstery.

This is not that hard to grasp. If they can generate artificial gravity, 
then they can just do this inside the cockpit in opposition to the 
direction of motion, so the net effect on the pilot is *0*.

-- 
"I accept"
"To accept is to yield"
"To yield is to allow oncoming traffic the right of way"

>This irritates me, too. Why can't we have any cool aliens like living
>spaceships or something?
>
>Braden

	Because the users of the software have to understand the
enemy.  WC is a movie-like game; if the enemies were so alien so that
they are completely non-human, how good of a game would it be?  Plus,
even the most imaginative person borrows some elements of humanity
when creating stories.

mat...@netcom.com (Matuse) wrote:

>>If the fighters moved like jets in sims (that is, u/d control pitch,
>>and l/r control roll), at least all the Gs would be oriented through a
>>vertical cross-section of the cockpit. There should still be a speed
>>limit in turns such that one would not become a greasy spot embedded
>>in the upholstery.

>This is not that hard to grasp. If they can generate artificial gravity, 
>then they can just do this inside the cockpit in opposition to the 
>direction of motion, so the net effect on the pilot is *0*.

Oh, artificial gravity. Now it all makes sense.

Hell, with that kind of technology, why are we firing puny lasers and
launch piss-ant incendiary missiles? Why not just make a missile that
will compress an enemy into a micron-sized lump of neutronium. You
could probably make some pretty indestructible shields with this Magic
Variable Force Generator, too.

Braden

Another thing to compare about the G-Forces depate here, consider 
this...
An Arrow light fighter has a roll rate of 90 degrees per second.
Pretty fast you say?
An Air Force F16 fighter has a roll rate of 720 degrees per second.
Thats two barrel rolls per second!
If pilots don't get sick or upholsterized* in an F16, they should be 
okay in an Arrow.
Anyonw know how fast the space shuttle accelerates when it launches? And 
I hear the Saturn rockets from the Apollo era were an even rougher ride 
than the shuttle is now. Those would be the better stats to compare. I 
don't think a light fighter can push you as hard as the shuttle, I could 
be wrong... Any official word?

Sean

*upholsterized is not actually a word I just thought it sounded like a 
good way to say "become a greasy spot embedded in the upholstery.

In <310F2E...@best.com> Sean Bradshaw <sean...@best.com> writes: 
>Anyonw know how fast the space shuttle accelerates when it launches?
And 
>I hear the Saturn rockets from the Apollo era were an even rougher
ride 
>than the shuttle is now. Those would be the better stats to compare. I

>don't think a light fighter can push you as hard as the shuttle, I
could 
>be wrong... Any official word?

The Shuttle accellerates a max of 3G during takeoff to minimize crew
stresses and maximize on fuel efficiency.

I saw "Space Camp."  I know what I'm talking about.  :)
-- 
Lee Hutchinson
Poke...@ix.netcom.com
"One hundred and six miles to Chicago; we got a full tank of gas, a half-
pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."

"Hit it."

In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960201...@inibara.cc.columbia.edu>
Thomas Hong <th...@columbia.edu> writes: 
>	A normal airliner take-off is around 2-3Gs.  =)

[raised eyebrow]

What kind of airline do you fly on?  I'm impressed at the numbers you
quoted in the previous message (the flew right over me), but it would
seem to me that someone weighing 155 pounds (like me) would be pushed
back against the airliner seat with a force of 310-465 pounds if the
takeoff accelleration were that much.  But, I dunno, last time I flew
was about a year ago...maybe they've upgraded all the jets in the
universe since then...

I've been in a car in an extremely high-speed turn before, and that was
quite a bit of lateral G's, at least subjectively.  And according to
back issues of Road & Track, the quickest cars in the world have
skidpad ratings of ~ 1g.  Sooooooo.....

-- 
Lee Hutchinson
Poke...@ix.netcom.com
"One hundred and six miles to Chicago; we got a full tank of gas, a half-
pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."

"Hit it."

>	Max Q (moment of maximum tension) during a shuttle launch is at
>+75 seconds (that's when the Challenger exploded) when it reaches max
>velocity (Mach 11), so acceleration has to be faster than just 3G,
>probably around 5G or so. 

Ack.  Should've thought of this before I sent off the other message. 
This fact I'm sure of:  The shuttle hits a maximum speed of Mach 25
when it takes off, but it gets there gradually so as not to jellify the
crew.  5-6G's is a bit high...anyone not wearing a G-suit would black
out right at around 5G's (and AFAIK shuttle crew during launch wear
standard pressure suits, which don't have those fancy air-sack
compression pumpey things [my stunning vocabulary] that G suits have).
I think the whole point here is not to do a maximum, all-out
accelleration, but to economize on fuel to get the longest possible
burn out of the engines.  The shuttle is traveling at it's fastest at
or around the moment of the seperation of the SRBs, and then the main
engines are throttled back to about 60%, again to maximize on fuel
efficiency.
-- 
Lee Hutchinson
Poke...@ix.netcom.com
"One hundred and six miles to Chicago; we got a full tank of gas, a half-
pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."

"Hit it."

Sean Bradshaw <sean...@best.com> writes:

>Anyonw know how fast the space shuttle accelerates when it launches?

I seem to recall reading that it hits about 6 G on the way up.  Don't
quote me. :-)

>I don't think a light fighter can push you as hard as the shuttle, I could
>be wrong... Any official word?

Well, unofficially, if you assume the Confed Arrow accelerates from 0 to
500 kps (km/sec) in 5 seconds, it works out to 10,000 G.  Crushes the pilot
into instant neutronium. :-)
  
Gary

In <4eml0m$5...@bud.shadow.net> bra...@shadow.net (Braden N. McDaniel)
writes: 
>Hell, with that kind of technology, why are we firing puny lasers and
>launch piss-ant incendiary missiles? Why not just make a missile that
>will compress an enemy into a micron-sized lump of neutronium. You
>could probably make some pretty indestructible shields with this Magic
>Variable Force Generator, too.
>
>Braden

Hey, man, don't MAKE me whip out my Extradimensionaltranscytosmicphase-
invertinggravitonparticulate Whizbang Cannon and just FRY your ass...


-- 
Lee Hutchinson
Poke...@ix.netcom.com
"One hundred and six miles to Chicago; we got a full tank of gas, a half-
pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."

"Hit it."

On Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:17:05 GMT, ga...@netcom.com (Gary Hladik) wrote:

>Sean Bradshaw <sean...@best.com> writes:
>
>>Anyonw know how fast the space shuttle accelerates when it launches?
>
>I seem to recall reading that it hits about 6 G on the way up.  Don't
>quote me. :-)
>
>>I don't think a light fighter can push you as hard as the shuttle, I could
>>be wrong... Any official word?
>
>Well, unofficially, if you assume the Confed Arrow accelerates from 0 to
>500 kps (km/sec) in 5 seconds, it works out to 10,000 G.  Crushes the pilot
>into instant neutronium. :-)
>  
>Gary
>
Yeah, except if you measure the distance traveled by using the size of
the ships as a guide, you realize the numbers on the speedometers are
off by a factor of about 1,000.

So you're flying in WC3 at WWI - WWII dogfighting speeds - 200 to 300
miles per hour.  Sort of like the cinematics for Star Wars.  WC, XWing
and Tie, Renegade - they're all taking place in slo-mo compared to
what 'real' space combat would be like, even without imaginary
acceleration dampeners.

You'd need not just acceleration shields if you were flying combat at
100's of kilometers per second.  You'd need to have your nervous
system souped way way up too.  You're approaching a target the size of
a Dralthi, from behind, going 5 kps faster than the Dralthi (that's
5000 meters or a little over 3 miles a second).  You could barely just
see a  28 meter Dralthi at 5000 meters.  An approach, you in an Arrow
vs. a Dralthi, you've got a combined closing speed of over 1000 kps -
one million meters per second!  Note also that with the pathetic YPR
of these beasties, you'd not be able to line up your target in the
infintesimal fraction of a millisecond that you could actually SEE
your opponent that's coming at you at over 620 miles a second!

Most of y'all know this, I realize, including Gary whose post I'm
replying to, and gladly practice willing supension of disbelief in
order to have fun.  I'm just venting.  The only thing even remotely
real about these games is the moola you plunk down to buy 'em.  But
they are a blast!
--
Craig Lambert
Predestination: its not just dogma, its the law.
Or will be, someday.