Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Parsely]

The point is that he describes something as relatively small when it's relatively big, and in fact big enough to launch entire space stations. Your example fails because you have something that is small for a nuclear explosion, where here we have something that is huge for a rocket.

You say its big relative to the Saturn V? I'm not comparing it to the Saturn V. In fact, from the examples in the game, you know its big enough to send 3 people into space. Thus, a 2-stage rocket big enough to send 3 people up is "small" to me.

[Stirk]

I'm making a fuzz about the fact that we were never told what small meant, and that in this case, it's bloody huge, which is contrary to any common sense.

These kind of design games rely on the correct conveyance of information to make informed descision. If the game isn't logical, then there's no game, merely a series of opposing dice throws.

It's not a nitpick, as it's a very fundamental flaw in the game.

...No, it is nitpicky. Games like this have to be abstract. "Small" is an abstract definition. If poor Gunnin had to write "It is exactly 201.49 meters tall" for every piece of equipment he would have quit already. You need to know what it is capable of (getting to the moon and back), not its exact size to play the game.

The point is that he describes something as relatively small when it's relatively big, and in fact big enough to launch entire space stations. Your example fails because you have something that is small for a nuclear explosion, where here we have something that is huge for a rocket.

You say its big relative to the Saturn V? I'm not comparing it to the Saturn V. In fact, from the examples in the game, you know its big enough to send 3 people into space. Thus, a 2-stage rocket big enough to send 3 people up is "small" to me.

The Saturn V if what took three people to the moon in real life. So I think what he is saying is that, since they are bringing more people, they would need something bigger.

[10ebbor10]

The point is that he describes something as relatively small when it's relatively big, and in fact big enough to launch entire space stations. Your example fails because you have something that is small for a nuclear explosion, where here we have something that is huge for a rocket.

You say its big relative to the Saturn V? I'm not comparing it to the Saturn V. In fact, from the examples in the game, you know its big enough to send 3 people into space. Thus, a 2-stage rocket big enough to send 3 people up is "small" to me.

Ideally, you'd tell people what the words you use mean if you're using non-standard definitions. Had I known the rockets were big enough to launch entire spacestations from the beginning, different actions would have been taken.

You need to know what it is capable of (getting to the moon and back), not its exact size to play the game.

That information was completely absent.

The Saturn V if what took three people to the moon in real life

2 people, actually. Third one stayed in lunar orbit.

[~Neri]

To be honest, I was expecting the moon to be a no go zone until a side had researched it.

[Parsely]

The point is that he describes something as relatively small when it's relatively big, and in fact big enough to launch entire space stations. Your example fails because you have something that is small for a nuclear explosion, where here we have something that is huge for a rocket.

You say its big relative to the Saturn V? I'm not comparing it to the Saturn V. In fact, from the examples in the game, you know its big enough to send 3 people into space. Thus, a 2-stage rocket big enough to send 3 people up is "small" to me.

Ideally, you'd tell people what the words you use mean if you're using non-standard definitions. Had I known the rockets were big enough to launch entire spacestations from the beginning, different actions would have been taken.

...Is a rocket that is only big enough to put 3 people, with handguns and enough food to survive the trip, on the Moon, big enough to put up an entire space station?

[~Neri]

The point is that he describes something as relatively small when it's relatively big, and in fact big enough to launch entire space stations. Your example fails because you have something that is small for a nuclear explosion, where here we have something that is huge for a rocket.

You say its big relative to the Saturn V? I'm not comparing it to the Saturn V. In fact, from the examples in the game, you know its big enough to send 3 people into space. Thus, a 2-stage rocket big enough to send 3 people up is "small" to me.

Ideally, you'd tell people what the words you use mean if you're using non-standard definitions. Had I known the rockets were big enough to launch entire spacestations from the beginning, different actions would have been taken.

...Is a rocket that is only big enough to put 3 people, with handguns and enough food to survive the trip, on the Moon, big enough to put up an entire space station?

Yes.

[andrea]

well, the Saturn V ( 2 men to the moon, one in orbit) lifted skylab, didn't it?
therefore, a 3 men to the moon rocket is most definitely able to lift space stations.

[Happerry]

To be honest, I was expecting the moon to be a no go zone until a side had researched it.

This was what my assumption was too, to be honest. Not that starting out with lunar access is a horrible disaster, but it was a surprise.

The point is that he describes something as relatively small when it's relatively big, and in fact big enough to launch entire space stations. Your example fails because you have something that is small for a nuclear explosion, where here we have something that is huge for a rocket.

You say its big relative to the Saturn V? I'm not comparing it to the Saturn V. In fact, from the examples in the game, you know its big enough to send 3 people into space. Thus, a 2-stage rocket big enough to send 3 people up is "small" to me.

Ideally, you'd tell people what the words you use mean if you're using non-standard definitions. Had I known the rockets were big enough to launch entire spacestations from the beginning, different actions would have been taken.

...Is a rocket that can put 3 people on the Moon big enough to put up an entire space station?

Actually? Yes. Not all in one go, but most space stations are modular anyway. If it can lift a capsule capable of making a moon landing and then coming back to space, it can lift a space station module up. It'd probably take a separate trip per module and then either some work on automatic docking technology or sending some people up there to put everything together, but it'd be totally possible.

And that's assuming really basic hard constructed modules, and not anything like an inflated module to really save on space and weight when you're lifting it up or other advanced tricks. It wouldn't be a super good space station, but it'd still be a space station.

Or a Moonbase, if people would prefer. A Moonbase would probably be easier, honestly, if we can find a good lava tube type thing to set up in. Just need to make one way landings of enough stuff to cover any openings, add an airlock, and then pressurize the inside...

[Parsely]

So what I'll do is cut out all the Moon stuff and take away the Confederacy's new control points, then make a little size chart that tells you range in relation to size for rockets, and no one is allowed to go to the Moon at the start. Easy fix. How's that?

[~Neri]

We could also just leave it as is but get more clarification.

[Stirk]

So what I'll do is cut out all the Moon stuff and take away the Confederacy's new control points, then make a little size chart that tells you range in relation to size for rockets, and no one is allowed to go to the Moon at the start. Easy fix. How's that?

...But then we lose one of the places we had complete control over, the resources that go with it, and generally go from a position of "Slightly winning" to "Losing horribly" because one of our opponents complained  .

[Happerry]

So what I'll do is cut out all the Moon stuff and take away the Confederacy's new control points, then make a little size chart that tells you range in relation to size for rockets, and no one is allowed to go to the Moon at the start. Easy fix. How's that?

Whatever you do, as long as we're all working on the same picture of what we can do instead of having each quarter of us under a separate impression of capability, I'll be happy.

So what I'll do is cut out all the Moon stuff and take away the Confederacy's new control points, then make a little size chart that tells you range in relation to size for rockets, and no one is allowed to go to the Moon at the start. Easy fix. How's that?

...But then we lose one of the places we had complete control over, the resources that go with it, and generally go from a position of "Slightly winning" to "Losing horribly" because one of our opponents complained  .

And the only reason you got it so easily was because no one had a clue you'd be fighting there. I'm also somewhat puzzled on how you'd be getting resources from the moon when both sides can barely send men up there. Wouldn't we need logistic craft type stuff first?

[Stirk]

So what I'll do is cut out all the Moon stuff and take away the Confederacy's new control points, then make a little size chart that tells you range in relation to size for rockets, and no one is allowed to go to the Moon at the start. Easy fix. How's that?

Whatever you do, as long as we're all working on the same picture of what we can do instead of having each quarter of us under a separate impression of capability, I'll be happy.

So what I'll do is cut out all the Moon stuff and take away the Confederacy's new control points, then make a little size chart that tells you range in relation to size for rockets, and no one is allowed to go to the Moon at the start. Easy fix. How's that?

...But then we lose one of the places we had complete control over, the resources that go with it, and generally go from a position of "Slightly winning" to "Losing horribly" because one of our opponents complained  .

And the only reason you got it so easily was because no one had a clue you'd be fighting there. I'm also somewhat puzzled on how you'd be getting resources from the moon when both sides can barely send men up there. Wouldn't we need logistic craft type stuff first?

No, we are getting the resources on Earth that we get for controlling the moon. Which is why we get it for controlling the atmosphere. We would have won anyway, unless you had planned on developing a moon fighting thing for some reason.

[Playergamer]

Popping in to say I'm pretty sure they aren't getting resources from the moon, but are being allocated more resources by the country, or something.

[Parsely]

We could also just leave it as is but get more clarification.

Please clarify about what you need clarified. If you mean in your thread, I'm just about to answer a question.

...But then we lose one of the places we had complete control over, the resources that go with it, and generally go from a position of "Slightly winning" to "Losing horribly" because one of our opponents complained  .

Most of the USAA think my forgetting the capsule, and that your rocket can fly too far is unfair. The capsules was a mistake, and everyone seems confused about the rockets, so I'm going to fix it.

And the only reason you got it so easily was because no one had a clue you'd be fighting there. I'm also somewhat puzzled on how you'd be getting resources from the moon when both sides can barely send men up there. Wouldn't we need logistic craft type stuff first?

You're not exactly mining stuff from empty space in LEO either. No, the resources represent gains you make on Earth as a result of your control of space. Don't ask me why owning the Moon gets you more ore, it just does.