What's really happening is that the tactical squares are really only 1000 miles across (1600 km for y'all raised on metric), and that the image we see of a tiny planet is its equatorial cross-section, but the image of a star is really just a teeny, tiny sliver, and the remaining 99.99% of the star is actually
behind the map....
I was going to post a rebuttal to Puke this afternoon, but my logic hit a brick wall (repeatedly, and now it hurts like a...). Spoo's already pointed out the 15 million mile-diameter moon, so there's obviously a bit of ambiguity in the scale of distance and the scale of time in tactical combat.
So, for the sake of sending this thread on a completely different tangent, I suggest that a tactical square represent 1000 miles, a tactical turn represent 5 minutes, and thus tactical combat Last no more than two and a half hours per skirmish. (I also thought about 10000 miles and 1 minute, but since I couldn't decide in favor of any value over the other, I went with my original arbitrary instincts.)
Naturally, any planet and star images would have to be altered. Since a star would take up the whole of the map, maybe just have part of the star visible (an arc taking up, say, part of the top of the map). Ships that get to close to the star's edge could take solar damage, eventually burning to a crisp. 'Course, then the map would have to be bigger, but a scrolling and zooming map could take care of that.
I can't continue my line of reasoning until we at least agree on a scale of time and distance. I gotta hear your opinions on this... (sound of can opener and a worm falling to the floor).
Quikngruvn
------------------
"That which does not kill you will make you stronger." -- Nietzsche
P.S. You know what would be really cool? Movement cost for turning in tactical combat....
[This message has been edited by Quikngruvn (edited 14 July 2001).]