PDA

View Full Version : So speed equals?



Hellebore
22-01-2007, 14:48
There have been several discussions about what the speed bands represent, and I was wondering what others thought.

Marv335 calculated it like so:



took the max printed background speed from AI and divided it by the max speed rating from the rules.
it's a reasonably consistant figure 350-400kph per speed band seems to be the norm.
i think, from looking at the figures that this is how they worked out the speed bands.

Several people (such as Orangesm) have disagreed with this interpretation.

I thought it looked pretty consistent though, and have thought of the speeds in Marv's manner.

However, I've been looking at the speed values when compared to the 'realworld' speeds and some of them just don't seem to gel.

First, the ork fighta has a SPEED of 7 and a max speed of 2100 kph. The imperial thunderbolt has a S of 6 and a MS of 2200 kph (the lightning has a S 6 and an MS of 2400 kph). Here a higher S aircraft has a lower MS than others with lower S.

The manta is listed as having a S of 7 and an MS of 2600 kph. The Vampire has a S of 7 and a MS of 3100 kph. These are hugely different to each other, not to mention the ork fighta with a MS of 2100 (the vampire has the same S but a MS difference of a 1000 kph).

The hell blade has a S of 8, and an MS of 2800 kph, whilst the hell talon has S 7 and MS 2350 kph.

Here is another example of a higher S having a lower MS than others (the vampire at 3100 kph with S7 vs the hellblade at S8 and 2800, and the helltalon at 2350 - a huge difference).

So, althought the division looks ok, many of the craft end up with stats that are contradictory when compared to each other.

So what do people think of this? Are the speeds 1-9 divisions of the Maximum speed of the craft, or are they more arbitrary 'combat' speed divisions.

If they are slower than max speed, then ground defences and tyranid creatures should be able to move around them with less trouble, whilst max speed would make tank movements negligable.

Hellebore

Christine
22-01-2007, 17:02
Personally I'm not sure - it's a little outside my area of expertise but if we could crack this it would be very helpful when designing homegrown aircraft for the system - hey I love converting!

kris.sherriff
22-01-2007, 17:05
I think they are lower then the max speed for some aircraft especially the imps as I would expect them the max speed to take in to account the rocket boosters and you have to remember that altitude affects the speed a jet can fly at usually higher meaning faster.
The main reason people seemed to be doubting Marv's theory was the use of max speed in combat but I think there is a little real world physics clashing with SCIENCE FICTION physics and I think in terms of game balance I am sure we will all find that the speed bands work really well.

Hellebore
23-01-2007, 00:40
Well, part of my reason for asking has to do with ground defences.

I want to be able to do up rules for tanks in AI, where you can have columns of them moving across the table being strafed by the enemy and attacked by enemy armour.

If the aircraft in the game are actually moving at top speed, the speed of ground units will be negligable, but if they AREN'T moving at top speed, I should be able to represent a tank moving with a speed of 1, and Fast vehicles with Speed 2.

Hellebore

kris.sherriff
23-01-2007, 08:38
You could try it you never know it could work but I really don't think background wise they could move that fast.
When an aircraft has entered in to a dogfight they will use there fuel up extremely quickly (we are talking 10 minutes for a few thousand kg of fuel) even if you fit external fuel tanks this gives no extra flying time when flying at high speed as it is off set completely by the extra drag. I can See the average game of AI lasting no longer than half an hour real time (maybe even less).
Even if you say that the speeds that Marv worked out are to high maybe reduce them by a third that still means that if you were to give a Russ speed one in your 12 turn game it would have moved about 2400 kilometers in half an hour!

You need to look at how aircraft work in Epic in one turn the have moved on to the battle field had a dog fight strafed thier ground targets and returned to base to re fuel and re arm ready to come back in the next turn.

marv335
23-01-2007, 08:44
if you really want to make attack runs at moving columns of tanks, why not play epic?

ground targets in AI are just there so the bombers have something to do ;)

orangesm
23-01-2007, 13:04
The reason lots of fuel is used up in a dogfight is that there is lots of maneuvering going on and power adjustments. Tight turns bleed speed from the aircraft and so power has to be added (this is why engines that can get an aircraft to 2000 kph are important). The argument that vehicles moving the length of the table in 30 minutes has a lot to do with what the size of the table is compared to the minis (in Epic a Rhino can cross a standard table 'Doubling' 2 turns which if I remember correctly happens to be ~ 30 minutes (15 minutes per turn). Epic is not the solution as it would be an action by the flyers.

On bands of speed - if instead of assuming the cap of speed equal their max speed - we assume that they corresponds to slower speeds that would not take them off the table within seconds of entering. Beyond the question of real physics it is a question of being able to sight in on the target using guns. I can understand inertial dampeners making high g-turns uneventful, I can understand forward aero spikes that allow the thunderbolt to go to Mach 1.7 without losing its wings. What I can not agree to is visually spotting your enemy and moving to intercept them while you are going Mach 1.7. I will even give Imperial pilots MkII eyeballs (meaning that have something other then there natural eyes).

speed of sound at sea level = 1225.044 kph

As you gain altitude the speed of sound drops. So at 41000 feet it is 1062.16704 kph. If you put the bands in terms of knots indicated airspeed instead of kph you can set up the bands to have some that are super-sonic with each band corresponding to ~100 knots. So a ground vehicle at max speed would have ~1/2 or 50 knots or 57 mph / 92 kph.

Greblord
23-01-2007, 13:35
I'd suggest a primer on dogfighting such as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight) may go a long way to answering your questions.

"a dogfight has nothing to do with supersonic speed, but much to do with the engine power that makes supersonic flight possible."

I also think you're very much mistaken if you think an encounter between two aircraft lasts anything longer than 12 minutes (if you want a value to equate to game turns), though I'd be more inclined to say that the whole thing represents 6 minutes, and each turn is 30 seconds...

<waffle>

I have been considering how fast a 'speed unit' may be, and I think possibly it may be exponential - instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, you may have 1, 4, 9, 16, (1x1, 2x2, 3x3, 4x4) or something similar. This would simulate the ability of the aircraft to accelerate to very high speeds, whilst allowing something at speed one to land.

</waffle>

:)

orangesm
23-01-2007, 15:08
Very good point on the 'time' of a turn in AeroImp. It can have short periods of time even if the speed is combat and not max. If we assume that the scale is true (as in mini to table size), then a table is only 400 m wide and 600 m long (odd actually since it is a 4' x 6' table or 120 x 180 cm and at Epic scale that is what it equals).

Now an aircraft traveling at 583.33 m/s (2100 kph max speed of Thunderbolt) would zoom across the table. Now a Rhino traveling at max speed (55 kph, 15.3 m/s) across a table would take about 26.7 m/s. So neither of these are accurate and the table must be larger than the basic scaling math would suggest.

Taking it in the reverse direction and assuming that a Rhino traveling under its max speed (40 kph) in order to allow ranged engagement of the enemy, loading and unloading of troops, I would make it 20 minutes for a turn in Epic so a game of Epic lasts an hour - an hour long engagement. This puts the table size at representing 40 km x 60 km. This means that in the above example of the Thunderbolt at max speed (2100 kph) it would take it 68.57 seconds to cross the table.

So in the representative world of Aero Imp - assuming its table size is the same as Epic, how long does it take a Thunderbolt to cross the table at its max speed. This would provide us with the relative combat speed. The scale can continue to scale the table up until it fits what ever.

So speed bands, turn length, and table size are going to all be interrelated and one of them has to be set for us to determine the rest of the equation (given the 'real' speed is accurate).

kris.sherriff
23-01-2007, 20:45
OK so once you have fired all of you ammo and want to disengage how fast do you go? Your max combat speed or your max speed?
We are all assuming that when writing the rules the game designers had some grand scheme to make everything mesh.
I think that they wanted a balanced game that was fun.
The mistake that I think they have made is letting you do a maneuver at your maximum speed, if you are say a hell blade you can do any of the ten maneuvers at speed nine which is just wrong (OK maybe the chaos fighter is a bad example cos the gods themselves could just make it stay together)
You are not telling me that if a fighter needed to bug out that he would continue to fly at his maximum speed for dog fighting.
So either they made a judgment call and said for a fun game we will let the maneuvers be carried out at any speed or they said OK pilots are stupid (which they are!) and would not want to get their jets out in one piece.
The difference between this game and most other's is that if you are going speed 9 you move 18 inches (Yo-Yoing excluded as you still travel that far just not straight and level) So if you want to go that fast you run the risk of overshooting your target because you are flying too fast if you chose the wrong maneuver and are a bad judge you could end up flying straight off the board.
One more thing that would suggest that max AI speed represents the fighters Max speed is that if you ever find yourself in a position flying faster than your max AI speed then you stay at that AI speed, surely if your jet could go faster it would?

orangesm
23-01-2007, 21:03
they said OK pilots are stupid (which they are!)

Firstly I do take offense.

Secondly you have made your point that yes if you are trying to get away and disengage you are going to speed away at max speed, possibly even dropping towards the deck to gain air speed (wait but you cant do that in AI, trading altitude for airspeed, which can be significant) and get out.

I think Grebold has made an excellent point that the Speed Bands could be exponential (or logarithmic!).

Funny thing about aircraft going faster. A T-38C is not capable of attaining sonic speed using its engines, but it can in a slight dive (a T-38A was able to attain such sonic flight straight and level). So a Thunderbolt may have a max speed of 2100 kph, but it does happen to have a rocket booster which may add it in attaining these speeds.

kris.sherriff
23-01-2007, 21:18
[QUOTE=orangesm;1239927]Firstly I do take offense.QUOTE]

I don't know you personally so I cant say you are stupid but when I was out working a fault last night that there was no display on the HUD and I have to raise the paper work go get tools and then go out to the jet TURN THE BRIGHTENS NOB UP:rolleyes: on the HUD then take all my tools back and clear pointless paperwork you can understand my point.
I have lots more examples of aircrew stupidity if you need them.
Also you can gain airspeed by diving in AI, it just kicks in in your next turn. (And can't take you above your max speed);)

marv335
23-01-2007, 21:35
i'm with kris on this one.
pilots are generally regarded by the engineers as stupid.
the stick to seat interface is not the most intelligent part of the airframe.
of course i can only speak of RAF aircrew.
mind you, they're far superior in skill to the american aircrew they've come up against at various nato exercises (maple flag, red flag, tlp, etc, etc,...)

McDonnel Douglas have released plans of their next generation fighter.
the crew consists of two.
a pilot and a dog.
the pilots job is to feed the dog,
the dogs job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything.
;)

orangesm
23-01-2007, 23:05
mind you, they're far superior in skill to the american aircrew they've come up against at various nato exercises (maple flag, red flag, tlp, etc, etc,...)

Sure they are marv335 :rolleyes:
And so do the French when they set the rules and restrict US aircraft, while they fly unrestricted.

The odd thing about what you have listed is that the British, French, German, American, Canadian, Danish, Israeli, etc units that participate in those exercises do not operate in a vacuum and fight as coalition forces against other coalition forces. So in the case of Red Flag if the visiting units (British, American, or otherwise) do well as a coalition (USAF, RAF, IADF, whatever units) against the aggressors (USAF pilots trained to fly like the old Warsaw Pact units) then they have done well. In the case of European exercises, there are actually German Squadrons that fly the old MiGs and 'act' as aggressors. So you are right at Red Flag the visiting units may do well against the aggressors, but those are flying like the Commies of old. :D


pilots are generally regarded by the engineers as stupid.
I am educated as an engineer, so what does that make me?

I have noticed a tendency for people to remember the worst instances of any encounter and not the best or the times they do something they do not normally do.

So what do we set in order to determine the speed bands?
Do we set the overall size of a table?
Do we set the 'average' length of a turn?
Do we use marv335's basic method of simple division? - which has some issues in matching up as hellebore has pointed out.

kris.sherriff
24-01-2007, 15:53
So what do we set in order to determine the speed bands?
Do we set the overall size of a table?
Do we set the 'average' length of a turn?
Do we use marv335's basic method of simple division? - which has some issues in matching up as hellebore has pointed out.

Your idea for setting the speed through the scale of the table is flawed as it dose not take in to account altitude.
You can't set it as the average length of a turn as you don't have enough information to work out the times. Don't know at what hight the scale is set at to the ground or the speed you are traveling at.
In his defense Marv's method of division was not 'simple'. He did put some thought in to it. (For a change)

For me I think the method used to make the speed bands was the division method as it is the 'Simplest' and that is what you want when designing a game. Using any other method overcomplicates it and detracts from the overall game play. It was the designers intent that in the time it took for an AI game to last ground forces or tyranids would not have time to move (significantly) Hence the reason that they don't have speed one. I think that over the course of a game (if the fighters were a hight one) tanks could probably move three inches but there is no way that they are moving thirty six inches in the course of a game no matter how you work out the speed bands.

P.S. I do recall that it was the Americans who banned the British F3's from using JTIDS as it was too much of an advantage and the Brits still won.
P.S.S Always remember that I.F.F. does not work in O.F.F mode.:p

Xavier
24-01-2007, 16:35
I am educated as an engineer, so what does that make me?


A person who thinks pilots are stupid?

Or is that only if your an aircraft engineer?

orangesm
24-01-2007, 16:43
I am also a pilot... that is why I asked.

Xavier
24-01-2007, 16:57
So you think your stupid?! That's a paradox and a half. :p

SonofUltramar
24-01-2007, 17:21
Very good point on the 'time' of a turn in AeroImp. It can have short periods of time even if the speed is combat and not max. If we assume that the scale is true (as in mini to table size), then a table is only 400 m wide and 600 m long (odd actually since it is a 4' x 6' table or 120 x 180 cm and at Epic scale that is what it equals).

Now an aircraft traveling at 583.33 m/s (2100 kph max speed of Thunderbolt) would zoom across the table. Now a Rhino traveling at max speed (55 kph, 15.3 m/s) across a table would take about 26.7 m/s. So neither of these are accurate and the table must be larger than the basic scaling math would suggest.

Taking it in the reverse direction and assuming that a Rhino traveling under its max speed (40 kph) in order to allow ranged engagement of the enemy, loading and unloading of troops, I would make it 20 minutes for a turn in Epic so a game of Epic lasts an hour - an hour long engagement. This puts the table size at representing 40 km x 60 km. This means that in the above example of the Thunderbolt at max speed (2100 kph) it would take it 68.57 seconds to cross the table.

So in the representative world of Aero Imp - assuming its table size is the same as Epic, how long does it take a Thunderbolt to cross the table at its max speed. This would provide us with the relative combat speed. The scale can continue to scale the table up until it fits what ever.

So speed bands, turn length, and table size are going to all be interrelated and one of them has to be set for us to determine the rest of the equation (given the 'real' speed is accurate).



LOL

What are you on my friend?

Bearing in mind that scale is never true in any GW game I think we can discount this entire arguement.

If however we do use Epic as a basis for movement you have to bear in mind that an attack run which is one turn of Epic and AI represent very different timescales. Let us also keep in mind that the Epic air combat rules mean that other aircraft or AA weapons can destroy them relatively easily which represents vast amounts of fuel/ammo being expanded (as shown by AI) to acheive these results which over a significant scale of time, those of you who have actually played AI will know that its not just a case of turning up and shooting things down.

I personnally think that a dogfight in 40k is akin to a WW2 dogfight where after actually engaging it would be over in about 3-5 minutes, the speeds being used are so fast that even the fastest Tyranid creature or land based vehicle in 40k would cover such a small distance it would be negligible in an AI game, hence why they don't take part (Tyranids) or are stationary (Tanks).

kris.sherriff
24-01-2007, 17:53
There have been several discussions about what the speed bands represent, and I was wondering what others thought.

Marv335 calculated it like so:



Several people (such as Orangesm) have disagreed with this interpretation.

I thought it looked pretty consistent though, and have thought of the speeds in Marv's manner.

However, I've been looking at the speed values when compared to the 'realworld' speeds and some of them just don't seem to gel.

First, the ork fighta has a SPEED of 7 and a max speed of 2100 kph. The imperial thunderbolt has a S of 6 and a MS of 2200 kph (the lightning has a S 6 and an MS of 2400 kph). Here a higher S aircraft has a lower MS than others with lower S.

The manta is listed as having a S of 7 and an MS of 2600 kph. The Vampire has a S of 7 and a MS of 3100 kph. These are hugely different to each other, not to mention the ork fighta with a MS of 2100 (the vampire has the same S but a MS difference of a 1000 kph).

The hell blade has a S of 8, and an MS of 2800 kph, whilst the hell talon has S 7 and MS 2350 kph.

Here is another example of a higher S having a lower MS than others (the vampire at 3100 kph with S7 vs the hellblade at S9 and 2800, and the helltalon at 2350 - a huge difference).

So, althought the division looks OK, many of the craft end up with stats that are contradictory when compared to each other.
Hellebore


OK I think I have solved peoples problems with Marv's devision method.

Please correct me if I get any of my assumptions wrong.

The thing that people disagree with is that the maximum speeds (fluff wise) don't seem to compare to the maximum AI speed.

This is shown by Hellebore's examples.

The problem with Hellebore's examples are that every aircraft that has an inconsistency between its max AI speed and max (fluff) speed is equipped with rocket boosters.

I am assuming that we all agree that if you were to have a rocket booster upon firring it you jet would go faster? There by raising your maximum fluff speed.

Unfortunately in AI the rockets boosters only affect on the game is to allow you to leave the table by entering orbit. There by not effecting your maximum AI speed (Well except that you are going fast enough to brake orbit)
If you take out this factor then Marv's devision method works perfectly.

OK that should get the thread back on topic.:D

orangesm
24-01-2007, 21:30
Which by the way to reach orbit (low orbit) is >7 km/s or 25200 kph using the rocket booster.

My point (I am not on anything) was that what the speed bands represent would be more related to the length of a turn and the 'size' of a table and that the size of the battle field would be really large if you kept speeds significantly high - ie max speeds between 2000-3000+ kph.

So here is a question - using the max speed of the fastest vehicle that can achieve Speed 9, how far will it go in a game (12 turns) if it fly's straight and level the entire time. If we make the assumption a turn is ~30 seconds and a game last 6 minutes, this will tell us how 'big' a table is suppose to be using the each band is ~370 kph.
9 x 370 km/hr x 1 hr/60 min x 6 min = 333 km so how many inches is that equal to?

Gen_eV
25-01-2007, 04:08
12 turns moving 18" a turn is eighteen feet, so three average tables.

Meaning each table is over 100km long. Not bad, eh?

Of course, there's also the extra oomph from the bonus from the manoeuvre card, which will ad another little bit. Can't find my cards (or rulebook) at the moment, but it should be about an extra 4-5" a turn, which would increase the distance moved by another notch, leaving each table at somewhat under 100km in length.

orangesm
25-01-2007, 13:38
Thought of a follow on - how far does Speed 1 take an aircraft in 12 turns?

37 km which would mean that it should be able to go 2 ft (24") if it is a linear relationship. So that is 2" a turn at speed 1.

marv335
25-01-2007, 16:21
to further complicate matters, (just before i fly out to the south atlantic) the turns are measured in fuel used, not time :D

Xavier
25-01-2007, 18:49
Ok, engineers, work out how much fuel a thunderbolt burns a turn :p

PS Marv's a loser.

kris.sherriff
25-01-2007, 20:12
OK, engineers, work out how much fuel a thunderbolt burns a turn :p

PS Marv's a loser.
1st point
You can't as a turn in any game is abstract. In AI it represents 1/12 of the fuel available to be used for the mission not including transit, take off, and required emergency reserves. (All of that is assuming that thunderbolts even use fuel who knows what goes on in the 41st millennium)

2nd Point
Yes, Yes he is but it is not nice to abuse people who have no chance of retaliation.:p

Xavier
25-01-2007, 20:27
Exactly. Just like trying to calculate the real life equivelent speed a fictional aircraft with made up speed characteristics would be able to achieve. Even if all you are doing is trying to ascertain how the speed bands are allocated.

It could in all honesty have nothing at all to do with the established specifications each aircraft has and could in fact be made up purely for game balance. Here's a thought, email forgeworld and ask :p

In all honesty the detail you are all putting into calculating this is out of place, I highly doubt forge world, or games workshop for that matter care that much about comparing it to established norms, or whether or not a rocket booster should be factored into a max speed characteristic.

It might not be nice, but it never hurts to state facts now does it?

orangesm
25-01-2007, 23:21
No and your right, but wargamers like to have a sense of some kind of realism from time to time.

Xavier
26-01-2007, 00:10
Then their playing the wrong game systems, there are other systems that are far more true to the laws of common sense and reality than the warhammer and warhammer 40k universes.

orangesm
26-01-2007, 00:45
I would say that BFG & Epic are fairly good wargames. I would think that AeroImp is also based on yes game play, but there is no reason that background can not line up with the rules (Epic is an excellent example). Laws of common sense and laws of reality do not necessarily match up even. So would you prefer common sense or reality?

For example - to descend to a 'lower' orbit do you think you have to slow down or speed up?

Xavier
26-01-2007, 01:33
... Higher altitudes have less oxygen and subsequently produce less drag requiring less 'speed' to maintain the same 'speed' (poorly worded) Thus if you descend to a lower altitude you would need to increase 'speed' to keep your 'speed' constant.

Common sense rules while the rules set itself reflects reality, meaning a realistic game while the rules for using said game rules are common sense, unlike the current RAW fiasco that plagues two of the core rules sets.

Hellebore
26-01-2007, 01:34
And 1/12th of your available fuel is not the same as 1/12th your total fuel - as I assume pilots leave enough to get back to base (which could be quite a distance away (and was in the Taros Campaign - so any recreations would require it).

For all we know, the 12 turns of fuel use represent 30% total fuel available...

Hellebore

orangesm
26-01-2007, 01:42
Your answer to my question was not the right reasoning. I asked about orbits as an example - the lower your orbital altitude the faster you have to orbit because you have to fall around the body faster to stop from falling into the ground. Drag only factors in a little bit and the presence of oxygen is not related to drag - that is the presence of air or gases, Mars has low air pressure and almost no oxygen, still has drag.

So here is a question - in a campaign are there rules for the range of aircraft, how long they can be on station?

Xavier
26-01-2007, 01:49
I gave you the answer as I understood it, I answered it base on my limited knowledge of the subject, which given that I am no engineer/pilot/personwhogivesacrapaboutflyingmuch is lacking in the base understanding. This is shown by statement saying oxygen instead of gas/air and extending the assumption of orbit meaning altitude since that was the topic of discussion.

I don't believe so, not that I have noticed.

orangesm
26-01-2007, 02:07
Sorry... I did not mean to sound superior, my attempt was to show that common sense and reality do not necessarily line up.

If a turn is equivalent to a percentage of the fuel remaining once the aircraft arrive on station, 12 even turns means the battle is fought when they are equally close or far from the area. An aircraft can stay on station for a lot longer not doing combat maneuvers than it can with lots of changes in power (speed and altitude). But I did not write the rules.

Xavier
26-01-2007, 02:39
Well, in that case you are wrong, at least in that instance, common sense and reality did make sense in that example, even if my understanding of the exact science behind it was flawed.

Exactly, and to do so would over complicate the rules, another factor in the creation of some what non realistic game rule sets, to make it true to fact and reality would be like next to impossible.

Iracundus
26-01-2007, 18:58
The matter is further complicated if you look at weapon ranges. For example, autocannons and lascannons reach out to the 2nd range band. In 40K, they have a range of 48". So if one takes that range as a scale, 1" AI = 4" 40K....meaning if that's the case, AI aircraft aren't really moving all that fast at all when fighting. In which case, the objection over Tyranid air creature speed also goes out the window.

Xavier
26-01-2007, 19:09
A very good point, and as you said one that further complicates matters.

What is the average range of a lascannon equiped unit/stand in epic?

That will really complicate things :)

kris.sherriff
26-01-2007, 20:40
Exactly. Just like trying to calculate the real life equivelent speed a fictional aircraft with made up speed characteristics would be able to achieve. Even if all you are doing is trying to ascertain how the speed bands are allocated.

It could in all honesty have nothing at all to do with the established specifications each aircraft has and could in fact be made up purely for game balance. Here's a thought, email forgeworld and ask :p

In all honesty the detail you are all putting into calculating this is out of place, I highly doubt forge world, or games workshop for that matter care that much about comparing it to established norms, or whether or not a rocket booster should be factored into a max speed characteristic.

It might not be nice, but it never hurts to state facts now does it?


I said all of this in an earlier post and my reason for thinking that the devision method was used was that it was the simplest and the only people who were picking holes in it were the people who really wanted ground units/tyranids to be able to move/be included.

The reasons they gave for picking this theory apart have been proven wrong when you take the rocket booster in to account.

I am still to hear a different theory that is as simple and makes as much sense put forward (That isn't tainted by blind hope that Tyranids can take part.)

I can give you one good reason why they will never release a tyranids air force.
The money it would cost to buy. If you want to flood the table with spore mines and harridan with the poor stats that have been made up in the numbers that have been mentioned how much are forge world going to charge for them? Keep the in line with the other ranges prices so it would cost hundreds of pounds to field a force capable of fighting 5 thunderbolts or make them stupidly cheap and anger people who have to pay 12 for two thunderbolts when Tyranids are paying 12 foe lots more stuff?

orangesm
26-01-2007, 22:06
It was put forward in this instance for purposes of including moving land vehicles.

Tyranids - could develop a 'natural' evolved jet engine. What is really odd is I should be one arguing against the Tyranids because there is no realistic way to incorporate them based on what is in nature. But it seems that arguing that the speed bands represent a lower speed than the simple division method woudl argue that the Tyranids should never show up because there is little in nature to support it.

So -
If you are in favor of super-sonic dogfights (the result of simple division) then you should not have as much issue with jet speed (400-800 kph) living creatures as someone who wants to reduce the the speed bands to a lower speed.

If you arguing for lower dogfighting speeds due to current constraints and possible human limitations even with the standard scifi necessaries of inertial dampeners, fusion engines, and advanced aerospace jet/scram/ram/rocket engines then you should be in the party against Tyranids.

But this is not the case - it is the opposite.

Xavier
26-01-2007, 22:06
Its a fighter plane air combat type game thing... why would ground units play a major part in it?

A more specific reason, though along the same lines, a proper nid airforce is exactly as you describe, spore mines, harridan, gargoyles (to some extent) to include rules for clouds of spore mines and swarms of small things (birds to fly into engines...) would be stupid.

kris.sherriff
26-01-2007, 23:53
It was put forward in this instance for purposes of including moving land vehicles.

Tyranids - could develop a 'natural' evolved jet engine. What is really odd is I should be one arguing against the Tyranids because there is no realistic way to incorporate them based on what is in nature. But it seems that arguing that the speed bands represent a lower speed than the simple division method would argue that the Tyranids should never show up because there is little in nature to support it.

So -
If you are in favor of super-sonic dogfights (the result of simple division) then you should not have as much issue with jet speed (400-800 kph) living creatures as someone who wants to reduce the the speed bands to a lower speed.

If you arguing for lower dogfighting speeds due to current constraints and possible human limitations even with the standard scifi necessaries of inertial dampeners, fusion engines, and advanced aerospace jet/scram/ram/rocket engines then you should be in the party against Tyranids.

But this is not the case - it is the opposite.

Why won' anybody listen to me
Why?
I said that the game is flawed, that for a fun and balanced game the chose for some things to happen in abstract and some thing they probable didn't put any thought in to at all.
1. All the aircraft have the same amount of fuel.:wtf: not correct fluff wise but it makes for a fun simple game.
2. You can perform any maneuver your aircraft can carry out (i.e. low, high and very high classes) at any speed when (conventional) logic says that you shouldn't be able to do some of the turns at certain speeds. (Not that pilots give a ****** if they over-stress an airframe thats what the ground crew are there for.)
3. Diving increases your speed in the subsequent turn unless you are already at you maximum speed in which case you stay at you maximum speed. Surly that maximum speed is there for a reason if something would take you above it I thing bad things should happen but they don't to keep the game simple.

Not once did I say I was in favor of super sonic dog fighting (hell some of the aircraft in 40K shouldn't even fly never mind get supersonic, I mean how badly designed are the thunderbolts, poor visibility from the cockpit and vectored thrust my ass) Not that we know how fast you would have to be going to be supersonic on an alien world anyway. What I said was that I think that the speed bands represent a bands of speed (thats right) worked out according to the given fluff speed of the aircraft (and Marv did his calculations using cruising speeds as well as max speeds and they came out pretty similar but then you throw in the optimum altitude for each aircraft to operate at and open up a whole new kettle of fish)

On the point of weapon ranges.
In 40K a weapons range represents the maximum EFFECTIVE range of a weapon when it is aimed correctly.
In AI you have to take in to account lead times as the aircraft are maneuvering sharply at (lets say) high speeds. There for a las cannon has a longer effective range as it travels at the speed of light (assuming that it is a laser but still a dam sight quicker than a bullet) there by needing less of a lead time and being easier to line up at range, not so good up close though as you have to fire this beam of energy right in to your jinking target while it is doing its best to avoid you. Hence the 0-1-1 for a las cannon. Auto cannons fire bullet's and need a larger lead time at range making a lot harder to hit a target further away. They are also calibrated like all modern rifled weapons for an effective range where the trajectory of the bullets from the four auto cannons converge any closer than this and it is harder to hit as the shots aren't 'landing' dead on the cross hairs. Hence the 4-6-0 of the Thunderbolt's quad auto cannons

Xavier
27-01-2007, 00:03
Noone will listen to you, because your a loser. Haven't you realised that yet? :p


3. Diving increases your speed in the subsequent turn unless you are already at you maximum speed in which case you stay at you maximum speed. Surly that maximum speed is there for a reason if something would take you above it I thing bad things should happen but they don't to keep the game simple.

My understanding is limited, but wouldn't max speed be terminal velocity for the size/weight of the plane, meaning regardless of diving towards the ground or not, it couldn't increase speed any?

kris.sherriff
27-01-2007, 00:15
Noone will listen to you, because your a loser. Haven't you realised that yet? :p



My understanding is limited, but wouldn't max speed be terminal velocity for the size/weight of the plane, meaning regardless of diving towards the ground or not, it couldn't increase speed any?

I had considered that but I can't help but think that say an Arvus Lighter could fly a lot quicker than speed 4 if you gave gravity a chance to help out.
Oh and get a hair cut.

Xavier
27-01-2007, 00:19
I can't its a prerequisite of being a hippy elf/eldar player :(

And you also have to factor in the different terminal velocities that could exist on alien worlds...

kris.sherriff
27-01-2007, 00:24
Or assume the took it all in to account and said sod it lets make a game thats fun and to hell with the physics of it?:D

Xavier
27-01-2007, 00:27
Which seems far more likely than factoring in the endless problems and technicalities they would inevitably come up with. Not to mention probably hiring aircraft engineers to explain the problems of certain rules :p

kris.sherriff
27-01-2007, 00:31
Which was my argument exactly. I spotted a few thing where I thought Oh I would of liked it if this were how that worked and would of enjoyed a few other bits and bobs but at the end of the day it is a fun game that works. Complicating it would spoil it IMO.

Xavier
27-01-2007, 00:34
And such is the curse of knowing things about the subject matter of the game, no?

Indeed, making it so complex you could not possibly keep track of all the subtle rules and end up making mistakes constantly (which in AI mean one dead plane) is a bad thing.

Incidently, assuming you have your things for AI, are you up for a game on tuesday?

orangesm
27-01-2007, 01:30
I am listening to you.


I am still to hear a different theory that is as simple and makes as much sense put forward (That isn't tainted by blind hope that Tyranids can take part.)

I do not have blind hope for Tyranids. I was pointing out, largely my speed arguments do not support jet-powered Tyranids, even though I am quiet capable of thinking of fast flying living creatures developing. The Vespids for example - are they the largest predators ever found on a gas planet?

So what am I saying - I give up on trying to determine/argue for/etc slower speeds or trying to figure out the lower speeds.

I never said that you "kris.sherriff" are in favor of super-sonic dogfights. It was a general statement to everyone.

A simple theory? You want me to figure out what the actually fraking max mach of the Thunderbolt airframe is? It is roughly Mach 1.077 based off of the miniature, until the wings exit the Mach cone causing the aircraft to become unstable as unsteady air bases over the wings - assuming they are needed. If the Thunderbolt as a point projector that can change the Mach cone so it begins about a full length in front of it, it could get up that to Mach 1.4.

The simple solutions... no living pilots, amazingly advanced force projectors in front of the aircraft, allow for the simple division technique used. There are technical scifi solutions to the just let it be question.


I was trying to help see if it was not possible to find a lower speed so that the game could include some more dynamic elements. Oddly enough airpower does not only consist of fighters fighting each other. Scenarios that involved moving ground targets are very possible, yes the ground vehicles move slowly, but how about a magnetic train?
If all you want to do is play air to air battles excluding any other scenarios then that is fine, this thread shouldnt matter to you.

kris.sherriff
27-01-2007, 11:24
I am listening to you.

A simple theory? You want me to figure out what the actually fraking max mach of the Thunderbolt airframe is? It is roughly Mach 1.077 based off of the miniature, until the wings exit the Mach cone causing the aircraft to become unstable as unsteady air bases over the wings - assuming they are needed. If the Thunderbolt as a point projector that can change the Mach cone so it begins about a full length in front of it, it could get up that to Mach 1.4.

If all you want to do is play air to air battles excluding any other scenarios then that is fine, this thread shouldnt matter to you.

I didn't want you to once again show your superior pilot intellect by coming up with figures for a make believe aircraft's max speed. What I was demonstrating is that if you really think about it not many things in our hobby make sense.

Also if you had read my first response it was to try including moving ground targets and that it may work but fluff wise I didn't see them being fast enough.
If all you want to do is argue that it is possible for imaginary tanks to move at speed nine and balloon like spore mines to fly around at an exponential rate. Then this thread should not interest you as it is entitled So speed equals not The feasibility of tanks in AI.
Hellbore listed reasons why he disagreed with the division method and I gave reasons why his arguments may be wrong.

I would also like to point out that I think it would be possible for the hive mind to evolve a creature that could take part in an AI game with a living engine. My argument is why would they bother. The Tyranids way of war works well with no need for interceptors. So why waste energy evolving it.

orangesm
27-01-2007, 15:13
I pulled the equations for it off the internet (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/machang.html), remembering the basics of sonic flight from a class in college. It is something anyone could do. You called most pilots stupid and I have probably not helped your opinion of them. Sorry.

I have read your first post - you talked about real world and 40k physics not necessarily jiving. I agree with that to a point, because well they have inertial dampeners, teleporters, and other classic scifi tech that is physically impossible technology (at the moment).

I have tried to defend my opinion that the simple division method is not the way to get the speed bands, which you agreed with in your second post.

Question on your third post though how does 1/3 of 370 kph (marv's speed 1) get you 2400 km in a half hour?

Even if you say that the speeds that Marv worked out are to high maybe reduce them by a third that still means that if you were to give a Russ speed one in your 12 turn game it would have moved about 2400 kilometers in half an hour!
It looks more like 60 km in a half hour.

So giving tanks speed 1/2 (if you make speed 1 = 120 kph and keep it linear) and allowing them to move while it does not immediately appear to matter could in a game. Especially at the beginning of a scenario built to include them - things like a Marauder bomber lining up to carpet bomb them, well that changes if you allow the tanks a 1" move each turn. Now instead of 1 line they are 2 (turn 1), etc...

I agree with you that there are many things in the hobby that do not make sense.

Have I argued for imaginary tanks that move speed 9? or spore mines that fly around at an exponential rate (I do not even know what you mean by that)?

Reasons for the Hive Mind to have an 'interceptor' stored in its wealth of biological material. Attacking a world like Vespid, that is very large (not Earth like at all) gas giant with the majority of the population living on large floating rocks (that scifi physics) that are separated by fair distances and it can be difficult for a hive fleet to swarm across it. The interceptors might protect each 'island' as they travel between them. Oh and there is the 'cool' factor which is why half the stuff in 40k exist. But so far no one, aside from me, has proposed an interceptor for AeroImp. They have largely kept to existing creatures and given them very low speeds that could possibly be entertaining to play. That is why their rules would need to be playtested.

CELS
27-01-2007, 17:40
Mentioning the 48" range of autocannons in 40k doesn't really make any difference. Keep in mind that the rules are not meant to be realistic, they're meant to create fun games and only partially reflect reality. For example, compare the odds of a normal human (T3) surviving a bolter shot (S4) with the realistic odds of being incapacitated if you were hit by a miniature explosive rocket. Even if you're hit in the toe, it's still going to take your foot off. However, 40k would be extremely boring if ranged weapons were realistically deadly. Furthermore, the range of weapons doesn't reflect the max range of the projectile, but rather the average range where the weapon ceases to be effective. For example, the effective range of a real life assault rifle might be 200 meters, but if you fire a few rounds into the air, they might land 2000 meters away. And it doesn't even stop there. You see, the effective range of a machine gun fired by infantry is quite low, compared to it's actual maximum range. If you mount it as a co-axial weapon for a tank, however, the effective range is increased considerably. Thus, having quad-autocannons on Thunderbolt should be entirely different from having infantry firing it. But wait! There's more! Keep in mind that autocannons are broad term that cover everything from small portable support weapons to huge AA-cannons on Hydra's. In 40k, we just call everything an autocannon to keep it simple, but realistically, the autocannon seems to represent everything between a .50 cal and a 30 mm machine cannon.

Still... if we assume that AI aircraft are travelling at supersonic speeds and that the table is 100 km long and that the range of an autocannon must be 10 km for this to be right, then we obviously have a problem. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if my argument here is relevant, since I don't have the AI rulebook and I've no idea about the ranges involved :)

kris.sherriff
28-01-2007, 05:06
I pulled the equations for it off the internet (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/machang.html), remembering the basics of sonic flight from a class in college. It is something anyone could do. You called most pilots stupid and I have probably not helped your opinion of them. Sorry.

I have read your first post - you talked about real world and 40k physics not necessarily jiving. I agree with that to a point, because well they have inertial dampeners, teleporters, and other classic scifi tech that is physically impossible technology (at the moment).

I have tried to defend my opinion that the simple division method is not the way to get the speed bands, which you agreed with in your second post.

Question on your third post though how does 1/3 of 370 kph (marv's speed 1) get you 2400 km in a half hour?

It looks more like 60 km in a half hour.

So giving tanks speed 1/2 (if you make speed 1 = 120 kph and keep it linear) and allowing them to move while it does not immediately appear to matter could in a game. Especially at the beginning of a scenario built to include them - things like a Marauder bomber lining up to carpet bomb them, well that changes if you allow the tanks a 1" move each turn. Now instead of 1 line they are 2 (turn 1), etc...

I agree with you that there are many things in the hobby that do not make sense.

Have I argued for imaginary tanks that move speed 9? or spore mines that fly around at an exponential rate (I do not even know what you mean by that)?

Reasons for the Hive Mind to have an 'interceptor' stored in its wealth of biological material. Attacking a world like Vespid, that is very large (not Earth like at all) gas giant with the majority of the population living on large floating rocks (that scifi physics) that are separated by fair distances and it can be difficult for a hive fleet to swarm across it. The interceptors might protect each 'island' as they travel between them. Oh and there is the 'cool' factor which is why half the stuff in 40k exist. But so far no one, aside from me, has proposed an interceptor for AeroImp. They have largely kept to existing creatures and given them very low speeds that could possibly be entertaining to play. That is why their rules would need to be playtested.

Yes the speed for a tank was just me being an idiot, my bad (ground crew can be stupid as well you know:cries: )

I agreed that there were discrepancies if you used the devision method but then latter when I looked at the aircraft that threw up the discrepancies they all have rocket boosters which don't affect speed in game but would fluff wise.

The imaginary tank thin was not aimed at you but people in general and it may have been a sight over exaggeration.:angel: and even 60kph is too fast fluff wise for (non eldar) tanks and even if you were to say that speed 1 is 120kph how can people justify wanting to give a spore mine speed 1 it is a balloon that expels some of the gas that keeps it afloat to close with its target once it's target comes to it.

Like I said I am not against the Tyranids being able to evolve something capable of acting as an interceptor but I can't see them having a need for them. In your example of them attacking a world such as Vespid, I see them having no problem at all in consuming the organic matter. The hive ships close from orbit surrounding the planet and upon entering low orbit Start to consume the atmosphere. Meanwhile launching harradrim and gargoyles, winged hive tyrants, winged worriers and winged ripperswams. All creatures that already exist in the Tyranids evolutionary locker.

The reason I am against Tyranids featuring in AI is not that they can't fight an air war its that there methods of conducting an air war is so different that I don't think it could be covered by the current rules set.
You would engage them in one of two modes the early invasion where you would be shooting what are effectively drop pods out of the sky, or in a mid to late stage where the table is quite literally covered with spore mines from altitude 1-4(or5) so imp fighters don't enter the lower altitudes because they would die. Taking in to account that Thunderbolts and lightnings(and a few of the other fighters in AI) are all capable of space combat it makes more sense to me for them to be used in the Imperiums standard strategy against the 'Nids of going after the Hive Ships out in space.(I.E. Shoot the big ones:cool: )