>Reply-To: logh@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>To: logh@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>Subject: Re: 2-D battles (was Re: [LoGH] Logh at sci-fi conventions (Gee...)
>Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:49:00 -0800 (PST)
>
>Here is my take on 2D battles. You got 2 sides, 40,000 + ships all
>together. So it would be easier to organize your fleet on a plain than
>trying to organize in a 3D pattern... Also the distance of 6 million
>kilos allow you to draw a flat plain for reference even when fleet
>formations are in 3D. If you seen the movies. The fleet formations
>are actually in 3D, but the over all battle is in 2D.
>
>I think that is my cent and 1/2.
>
>--Josh
My rationale is as follows:
The fleets have depth but this depth is usually minimal compared to length and width. When effective ship weapons reach out to the tens of light seconds, only a tiny fraction of a deflection is needed to hit a ship further up or down. If a ship were really far above or below the plane of the firer, then the target is more vulnerable from exposing more of its hull. So the thin fleet formations are an attempt to minimize exposure by presenting as small a head on profile as possible (certainly consistent with the enormously long, tall but thin FPA flagships).
The other thing is that if you have two fleets facing each other in empty space, they will form a plane as it is a relatively simple matter to rotate to face your enemy.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
