From: | JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Reflections on time.... |
Date: | Mon, 22 May 2000 22:50:22 EDT |
seconds long. To varying degrees (YMMV), this seems to have been generally
effective for person-vs.-person fights (either running gunfights or melee).
Some here may disagree with that assessment, but I think most people would
agree that it's not TOO far off the mark.
However, sometimes situations arise where 3-second combat turns are way too
short a measurement. This would be particularly true of vehicle-vs.-vehicle
combat, particularly naval and space combat. For example, a Mk 46 ADCAP
torpedo has a range of 20 nautical miles, yet it has a speed of 55 knots.
Consequently, if a sub were to fire it at a target at the extreme limit of
its range, 22 minutes (20/55 x 60) would elapse from the moment it fired to
the time of impact. That's equal to 440 Combat Turns!
Even at the person-vs.-person level this can be problematic. With the sensors
available for drones or even possibly man-portable versions, characters could
detect the enemy long before either side could get into shooting range.
Likewise, if one character had a weapon with a considerably longer range (LMG
versus SMG, for example), several minutes could elapse before everybody else
could get in range just to shoot, never mind hit.
The question I'd like to throw to the list is this: how would you think about
handling such a situation where hostilities would be expected to last for a
relatively long time (say more than a minute)? Would you break it down into
"combat time" and "non-combat time"? Would you use longer segments of
time
(like a ten-second round or a full minute) for such a situation? Would you do
something else?
An OC (observer-controller) at NTC (National Training Center at Ft Irwin,
California) once said that combat consists of several hours of figuring out
where the enemy is, followed by several minutes of waiting for them to get in
range (an optional step), culminating with a few seconds of actual fighting.
I wonder if something like that would be applicable here.
What do you think?
-- Jon