Sam_Toridan
	Hi, I recently setup a Ground Party to do some GPI work. It had the following contents :- 1 Shuttle (803) 2 Sensors (103) 3 Human Veteran Crew (511) The shuttle has 30MU capacity so it should all be capable of holding all the contents of that GP. However the GP shows as follows :- Embarking Size: 63 mus This is basically 40MU for the shuttle, 20 for the sensors and 3 for the crew. Shouldn't all that gear be INSIDE the shuttle and thus have a total size of 40MU. Have I missed something here, like an order to install gear and crew in the shuttle?
Ro'a-lith
	MU stands for Mass Unit, in other words it's weight or how heavy it is (in addition to the physical volume of the item). So the total GP 'weight' if you will is 63 MU, however the volume it takes up could be considered to be 40 MU - IE, within the shuttle (And I assume the sensor profile somehow reflects this).
Sam_Toridan
	Its only the physical volume I'm worried about. A shuttle can "carry" 30MU of gear so I want that gear inside the shuttle, not sitting about in the cargo hold beside it. When its flying through orbit the sensors and crew will be inside the shuttle - thats how I want them to travel. If the shuttle can fit aboard then its contents should as well. As for the weight of an item its completely irrelevant - my ship can happily carry 1MU volume of feathers or a similar volume of gold. It may be a bit slower (assuming the Phoenix software even takes relative mass into account) but that extra cargo is pretty irrelevant when compared to the total mass of the ship.
Steve-Law
	Interesting thread... Mass: 1. A quantity of matter cohering together so as to make one body, or an aggregation of particles or things which collectively make one body or quantity, usually of considerable size; as, a mass of ore, metal, sand, or water. .. 4. Bulk; magnitude; body; size. .. 6. (Physics) The quantity of matter which a body contains, irrespective of its bulk or volume. So a "Mass Unit" *could* mean size, but I think its safe to assume the scientific definition (6.) Mass is often used interchangeable with weight, and for most of us - living on Earth - it doesn't much matter, but with Phoenix we are talking about SPACEships. There is no weight in space. How this applies to this thread I have no idea :) i.e. How do cargo bays/holds/etc work? Why is Mass a limiting factor and not volume? Should every item have a Mass Unit AND a Volume Unit? Would inly a Volume Unit do instead? Does it matter? Obviously this is another place where game play and simplicity has to override realism (otherwise we'd all need Physics PhDs to even play! :) But I tend to agree that where something is inside something else the mass of the container only should be used. (thus using Mass Units in terms of Volume.) (Of course in the case of cargo it may be attached to the outside of a ship? But I think it's safe to assume that lifeforms go on the inside :) But other than that, I'm stuck for the exact Physics of it all...
finalstryke
	Embarking size implies volume to me, well surface area rather than weight anyway. But I'm not up to scratch on all this phyics so could be very wrong. *eyes glaze over in anticipation of someone of commenting on relativity and how travelling at lightspeed might affect both size and weight etc
Andy
	I'm assuming the program does take into consideration surface area and therefore volume when scanning as opposed to mass as this is programmed for ships as they have a profile to hit etc. Does this apply to GP's? It would make sense as it should be the same routine. Andy
Ro'a-lith
	I would have thought mass in BSE/Phoenix terms would also have applied to the 'weight' of the item - in terms of structure. For example, you could have a particle of super-dense matter weighing in at 300,000 x the mass of the Earth, yet being less than 0.0000001 of an MU. I don't see any ships moving very far with it I would say a Mass Unit in Phoenix consists of a combination of the physical volume and the mass of the item in question. Going back to Steve's post - I believe the mass of an item does have an effect on spaceships, at least in terms of engine factors. Ever heard the expression 'Thrust-to-mass ratio?"
Mica Goldstone
	Mass Unit This is a function of the most relevant limiting factor for an item. It can be considered inertia, physical size, accommodation space required, special storage requirements, sensor opacity and basically any other conceivable aspect. By keeping it vague we do not need to have multiple limits e.g. volume, inertia (the physics definition of mass at levels beyond A), space requirements beyond physical size (because living things are not vacuum packed), storage dimensions (not everything is square), storage containers (jewellery and radioactive materials are not stored in Tupperware) etc. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, we playing a game, not doing an accountancy course. It is hard enough to remember to use ships with life form capacities to pick up living cargoes. It is called 'mass unit' because it sounds better than 'limiting factor'. "We are just docking with Hypso, gonna buy 2000 Limiting Factors of luxury goods."
Ro'a-lith
	... and welcome back Mica
Steve-Law
	Good answer Mica, can't argue with it, but to take it back to the orginal question, which I think is a good one, shouldn't a GP inside a shuttle inside a spaceship only burden the spaceship with the external "limiting factor" (i.e. the shuttle mass?) I suppose this would also apply to ship embarkation size. i.e. not the toal mass of everything, but just the mass of the ship's hull. This could probably unbalancing though I suppose? And of course, the TOTAL mass should probably affect the landing/take off of a ship, but this is getting the beyond the bounds again :)
Sam_Toridan
	Yeah - what he said ... and welcome back Mica. Now where's my phone
Mica Goldstone
	QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Sep 4 2003, 06:12 PM) shouldn't a GP inside a shuttle inside a spaceship only burden the spaceship with the external "limiting factor" (i.e. the shuttle mass?) I suppose this would also apply to ship embarkation size. i.e. not the toal mass of everything, but just the mass of the ship's hull. This could probably unbalancing though I suppose? And of course, the TOTAL mass should probably affect the landing/take off of a ship, but this is getting the beyond the bounds again Theoretically, yes. There are inherent problems with this though beyond the mass for taking off. I suppose that a GP should have a size value and only the size value is used for embarking purposes. The only problem with this is the life support function - do we have two values.... can a shuttle, incapable of skimming free interplanetary gases while within a ship's hold still be able to provide life support? In fact should a shuttle be powered down while within ship? There goes the cold storage. What happens if a shuttle is destroyed with a full load while embarked? During normal combat it is presumed that sufficient time is present to unload prior to combat - can't do that in a confined space. All I see is a very complicated mess if we go down this road. At best it may be possible to generate two numbers, Embark cargo mass and Embark life mass. The only problem with this is that calculating these prior to setup would be complicated so delivering items to up a GP and embarking on the same day is unlikely to work where a player is trying to cram a GP into a ship. Is this really what is wanted? Mica
Andy
	QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Sep 5 2003, 08:28 AM) Theoretically, yes. There are inherent problems with this though beyond the mass for taking off. I suppose that a GP should have a size value and only the size value is used for embarking purposes. The only problem with this is the life support function - do we have two values.... can a shuttle, incapable of skimming free interplanetary gases while within a ship's hold still be able to provide life support? In fact should a shuttle be powered down while within ship? There goes the cold storage. What happens if a shuttle is destroyed with a full load while embarked? During normal combat it is presumed that sufficient time is present to unload prior to combat - can't do that in a confined space. All I see is a very complicated mess if we go down this road. At best it may be possible to generate two numbers, Embark cargo mass and Embark life mass. The only problem with this is that calculating these prior to setup would be complicated so delivering items to up a GP and embarking on the same day is unlikely to work where a player is trying to cram a GP into a ship. Is this really what is wanted? Mica Couple of issues I can see here : a) When a GP is embarked it goes into cargo regardless of the life capacity of the ship. This is the way I think it works now? If this is the case then the shuttle is considered to be powered up as it provides the life support. If the shuttle is considered to be powered up then it should inflict damage to the GP if destroyed and embarked on a ship. c) If the lifeforms are part of the shuttle capacity and not the overall ship capacity then this makes it alot easier to attack starbases. Imagine loading 40 heavy combat shuttles into a 4000MU cargo ship and also have the ability to carry 3400MU troops in the same load. You need half the cargo capacity to capture a starbase. This is unbalancing to the game in my opinion. d) My opinion is to leave it as is. It ain't perfect but is certainly easier to understand than having to split the GP up between life / non-life and then make sure th ship can support both. Don't add another level of complexity. Andy
Sam_Toridan
	From the CIA point of view we have small ships and therefore need to cram any gear INTO the shuttles. I'd be happy enough for shuttles life support capacity to not count if embarked - therefore a ship would need life support for the GP members too. Nothing to say the GP members can't live in the embarked shuttles but just use the main ships facilities. Keep embarked size down to shuttles and their capacity but limit troop transport by a ships lifeform capacity.
Andy
	I like the idea of having enough bunks / quarters on a ship for all lifeforms regardless if they in a GP or not, but having the internal capacity of the GP used up to carry other items, therefore extending the cargo capacity. This is not too unbalancing for starbase attacks as you still need the same amount of ships to carry all the troops to attack. It gives further options for exploration ships with embarked GPs, ie additional defences. Andy
Ro'a-lith
	Did we ever get a final answer RE: GP life support when embarked on starships? Would be handy to have a difinitive answer as to whether A) A GP's shuttles are considered as providing the life support or A starship's life support is used to calculate whether a GP can embark or not.
Andy
	I think the answer is no change. It does mean that cyro pods / bays etc are now redundant. Eg A ship with 4000MU cargo capacity can embark a GP of 4000 troops A ship with 4000Mu capacity can have a GP with 1 troop which is disembarked in orbit of a world. The GP buys / picks up the life goods. The merchant ship then embarks the GP and sets off again. Disembarks the GP which then delivers. With sequenced turns it's easy to do. It does mean that you cannot set loads of repetitive orders using this method as the GP needs to be disembarked / embarked. However it does mean ships can carry more as cargo bays have a greater capacity than cyro pods. Andy
Darrenworthy
	However, a GP does cost an extra 100 stellar per week. Although if it allows a ship to carry 4,000 MU of life forms that could easily be recovered when the trade goods are sold. Darren
Ro'a-lith
	Seems silly. A GP with sufficient shuttles to carry the troops is perhaps allowable within a cargo bay - but a GP with just lifeforms?
HPSimms
	Having spent some time and effort a year ago carefully configuring a ship to take the life component of a GP and then having to switch it back again I say leave it as it is, it works OK and is simple to use. Geoff