dilanski wrote:Scythe something I noticed in your video you said the whole crew of the vessel live in the 1 stud wide 'Arm'. I just wondered what scale you have in your head for this? Speaking with Colette, he believes 1 in micro space is about 3-4 meters, but I've always though of it being more along the line of 15 meters, what's your take on this?
My personal take? Well you are about to hit a wall of TL;DR, but I will try my best to cross reference my arguments towards a personal scale with examples and images to keep stuff rolling.
First of all, lets have an old-as-balls image to show the scale of development.
Lets have a look at this, it was the very first frigate I ever built following Olonthors microspace ruleset, the "Bulldog" class frigate (no longer used due to being obselete in universe and due to other things to be discussed later on) - it is about 7/8 studs long, build on a plate base/flat level and uses very few parts to attempt to represent weapons and hull detail.
And now the Regent, my most current build - with a noticeable size increase, SNOT building techniques and multiple stud directions and layouts to mark hull detail.
The Bulldog I would consider to be everyone's "base" attempts at micro space, be it LDD or otherwise - most builders would start at this level, using antennae pieces as turret weapons and building on a single axis, completely ignoring the concept of combat in three dimensions and over all lacking in detail and functionality. Most builders starting at this level would be better off playing a classic naval game with the designs they have created - no concept of a "Z" axis, broadside weaponry and a very beginners viewpoint in how a space engagement would work.
BUT - it is a start, and all good things start from small seeds. Look at the modern design, the turrets actually look like turrets - with a defined motion of axis, it LOOKS like something a gunnery crew would be inside, crampt in tiny chairs and crawl spaces, breathing each others sweat and fear as they get hurried orders and targets from the sensors and bridge crew - the turret turns, the barrel levels and the weapons open fire, inside the turrets of the Regent it is easy to imaging three guys getting sweat ridden through fear as the laser weapons vent for the next volley and that is needed to fully immerse the mindset of a builder - if you are playing microspace you NEED to imagine how the crew would be inside - so the old antennae/ball guns are fantastic for a beginners point of view - but as time goes on, the better the building skills become and the better the mindset of how what you are building would work becomes, scale increases to suit.
So lets move onto Warheads first chunk.
Warhead wrote:3-4 meters means even most small ships would end up being fairly large. However using this assumed Colette method would mean that Fighters would be as they already are (1x1 flat brik or similar). In reality we all know that fighters realistically would be less than the smallest of Lego parts and collectively accept that they are merely represented by Lego bricks in order to play the fucking game. This representation method also allows for smaller representations of larger ships and even the ability to include more ships in a smaller battlefield. Colette and other assorted assholes can not make this awesome jump of the imagination or leap of logic and are committed to trying to tell everyone that all Micro Ships should be referenced from the smallest unit as the rule. Utter gob-shite.
3-4 meters per stud would work fantastically for skirmish scale games, where something akin to most "frigates" would be 30-40 stud long table hogging monsters and most engagements would be between fighters and bombers that would fit on a scale fairly similar to befitting our frigate class vessels now, representing something larger than a destroyer would be nigh-impossible and most games would be better run using actual SHIP scale SHIP's and using minifigs to boot - but that defies the point of Microspace, we are making our stuff smaller to fit more awesome on the table, which is a point Warhead most elegantly covered in the post above.
Warhead wrote:I do prefer Dilanski's 15 meter scale reference but do not subscribe to any such across the board measurement system since it's just a who has the biggest dick exercise. And don't tell me that shit of wanting to replicate another members work to scale for your own battles. Surely so long as the Micro ships used in any given battle are appropriately sized to each other then the job is done. Putting down constricting rules like these is an anathema to the Brikwars mandate.
dilanski wrote:the F35-B's that'll be flying from the Elizabeth are 15.6 meters long, and most space fighters are slightly bigger than modern jets, so they still fit in scale at larger sizes.
Now these two posts alone define a rough sense of scale, most modern fighter craft are big, bigger than most of us thing because the minds eye expects something that flies to be small - most birds are small creatures with a large wingspan to body weight ratio and biology defines this far better than my short as shit explanation.
Fightercraft however, are fucking big - and most of them would never be able to fly by their design without considerable computer support. The Eurofighter would never be able to get off the fucking ground without the onboard computer making constant flight adjustments to the crafts wings and thrust ratios to keep the fucker in the air, let alone things like the Harrier or Vulture.
With a space fighter? You need multi axis controls - fuel lines throughout the craft and control systems to operate them, and then the computer systems to translate pilot controls into actual fucking motion to stop the thing from gyrating out of all fuckery - then you need your main engines to provide thrust, then the fuel tanks or power generator (or most likely both), the cockpit and life support systems - then the weapons, then the Armour. Most space fighters will be larger than modern craft which stands to point that representing them on the table would be difficult and so simplifying them on the table makes for a much easier way of playing the game - if we get too bogged down in creating something as "simple" as a fighter, larger craft become impossible to play without needing a fucking spreadsheet of data for something you should be able to fit on one side of a single business card.
15 meters makes sense, but should not be the rule - I personally work on the basis of a single stud being between 10-20 meters with a little leeway for the sake of the minds-eye, I can point out on the model roughly where everything should be so why do I need an exact weight/height/tonnage? I can clearly define which craft are fighters, bombers, gunboats, corvettes, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, battlecruisers, carriers and dreadnaughts - with enough room to wiggle in such variations as "Light" "Heavy" "Assault" "Support" and enough to work in things like "Super" before that - so why bog things down with further naysaying and debate when two players at a table can agree on rough terms and throw themselves into apocalyptic combat with enough firepower to level a small moon?
Watching the engagements from the forum so far, I have seen skirmish scale games with 3-4 ships a side, and titanic battles with multiple fleets and eldritch horrors from beyond, LDD is a decent base for people on the forum who would otherwise be unable to battle to throw their sides together and get something going without the need for spending money on bricks they may not be able to afford.
I would love to host a battle of my own eventually, but time contraints are an issue for myself, as they always have been before.
Now, despite past dickeries and obvious bullshite - can we all agree that George Lucas is a twat and get back to building more spesssheeps pwease?