A Lurker steps to the podium...
Ahem
We play the cinematic rather than the vector rules, but I have been reading
the discussion with interest. I want to see if I understand the
problems with the vector system correctly:
1) multi-arc weapons are not useful because the ship's last movement
order is always to Rotate Ship to a facing that will bring the desired target
into the ship's engagement basket
2) Advanced drives are overpriced because their ability to direct Main Drive
thrust in any direction relative to the facing of the ship is of less value
than their abilities in the cinematic movement system
This results because (I suspect) each ship's turn goes something like this:
Movement orders: A) Rotate ship to bring Main Drive in position to accelerate
B) Main Drive burn C) Rotate ship to bring weapons to bear on expected target
position
Followed by weapons fire
So the actions of a ship over several turns look like this:
Rotate ship, MD burn, Rotate ship, Fire Weapons Rotate, Burn, Rotate, Fire
Rotate, Burn, Rotate, Fire Rotate, Burn, Rotate, Fire rinse and repeat...
If you think about it, this would look pretty silly if viewed from afar,
nothing like what we expect.
And there is some discussion/thoughts/experiments about increasing the
Thrust Point cost of the Rotate maneuver in order to lessen this tendency.
Do I have this right so far?
If so, I offer an alternative suggestion: Instead of increasing the cost of
the rotate maneuver, limit each ship to one (1) Rotate per game turn. This
would (I think) have the following effects:
1) More careful consideration must be given as to when to turn away from
the enemy in order to burn the Main Drive, as the ship will not be able to
reorient until next turn at the soonest (later if a long burn is needed)
2) multi-arc weapons are now more useful as they allow the ship to keep
the target in the (larger) engagement basket even while accelerating in
another direction
3) Advanced drives are now more useful since the ship can essentially
accelerate "sideways" if needed
This makes the massive numbers of turrets on the (for example) Earthforce Nova
and Omega from B5 much more useful. Same for the broadside batteries of
Battlefleet Gothic and Honor Harrington style ships.
J
On Friday, August 22, 2003 8:40 AM, Jared Hilal [SMTP:jlhilal@yahoo.com]
wrote:
> If so, I offer an alternative suggestion:
> to one (1) Rotate per game turn.
The EFSB variant uses 1 thrust per facing change; which has the same effect.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects. 2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Commonwealth policy unless otherwise stated. 5. Finally, please
do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware of these
restrictions.
G'day,
Jared suggested:
> If so, I offer an alternative suggestion:
and Brendan pointed out:
> The EFSB variant uses 1 thrust per facing change;
Both sound suggestions, unfortunately the biggest problem to wrestle with is
how to do it without making the FB ships look like they were designed by
complete dummies (the NSL in particular). Fine line to tread unfortunately. It
may seem justified to say that vector is optional in the first place so if
changing it seems to wreck some designs well that's the price you pay for
playing the optional rule, but when over a 3rd of FT players say they only
play vector (based on the many polls on the topic) it gets harder to keep that
line of argument up;)
Cheers
Personally we have no problem with it as it is. Indeed, our mods make fire
simultanious (considered the cumulative fire over the course of the turn), we
use the critical hits in "deadly" mode, ie check each and every time a row is
crossed off, and vector 100%.
Points don't matter, we don't even try to calculate them. The rule here is use
the computer program to generate the ship or one out of a book.
I have no problem with advanced weaponry being deadly as hell.
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> So the actions of a ship over several turns look like this:
Unless of course you have seen Babylon 5, where the EarthForce Starfuries
behave *exactly* like this...
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Unless of course you have seen Babylon 5, where the
Which is, esthetically speaking, my favorite space combat action.
> Rotate ship, MD burn, Rotate ship, Fire Weapons
> Unless of course you have seen Babylon 5, where the EarthForce
I've never seen them behave *exactly* like this. They approach 'normally',
firing 'normally', then when close, in what SEEMED to be an unusual move, make
one firing 'like this'.
Natch, I never saw a ship larger than fighter, save for White Stars, do this
even once, but I'm willing to allow that my memory is pretty scratchy.
Is it a difference that makes a difference? I think so, Oerjan obviously
doesn't.
The_Beast
> Is it a difference that makes a difference? I think so, Oerjan
Yeah, it bugs me too. I'm inclined to say that turning must be done *before*
thrusting.
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> Is it a difference that makes a difference? I think
It's an esthetics thing. Do you think it looks unseemly, or silly, or just
plain unattractive? Then use Cinematic or apply the aforementioned house
rules. On the other hand, if you like it,or don't really mind, then leave
things as is.
Either way, it seems more a matter of personal taste, not a game design flaw.
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Brian B writes:
I think some of it comes down to your PSB.
If you think of firing as only 1 or 2 shots, with larger recharge times
between them, it makes perfect sense to thrust in one direction, spin, shoot,
spin back, and keep thrusting.
If firing takes the whole turn (lots of shots), but you have high reaction
drives that let you get a massive thrust for a short time (with recharge
between thrusts), then again you spin only as needed.
If both things take the whole turn though, then the spin shoot spin cycle
seems a bit strange.
> --- "Matthew L. Seidl" <seidl@wraith.com> wrote:
> I think some of it comes down to your PSB.
And PSB is a form of esthetics, as long as either PSB POV has SOME credence.
You pick the one that is denfensible AND feels right for your tastes. Either
way, it still comes down to which Setting/PSB/flavor
you want, and for some of us, the current model works fine. But for some it
might not, and the ideas that have been bantered seem to fix that for those
settings.
> Doug wrote:
> >Rotate ship, MD burn, Rotate ship, Fire Weapons
Look closer. I've spent the evenings these last two weeks viewing 4-6 B5
episodes a day, so I'm quite sure of it :-/
The reason you don't see the "turn, burn, turn, fire" sequence very clearly
while the Furies are at long range is that the burns are towards the target
they're intercepting and the turns therefore are small. Once they're at
their preferred combat range - ie., point blank - the turns are more
radical and therefore more visible.
This is exactly the same behaviour you get in FT's Vector movement: while
you're at long range and wanting to close you don't have to turn much, or
at all, between your main drive burn and firing your (F)-arc weapons. It
is only when you've reached your preferred range and don't want to get any
closer, or when you're flying past your enemy, that you need to make radical
turns after the main drive burn.
> Natch, I never saw a ship larger than fighter, save for White Stars, do
At least some Drazi ships do similar manoeuvres, and EarthForce heavies
seem to do so as well from time to time - though at a much slower rate,
making it harder to see.
Regards,
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> Jared Hilal wrote:
One solution:
Ships with normal engines can do: Rotate Ship, Burn, Fire ie all rotations
must be done at the beginning of the turn.
Ships with high manouverability can do: Rotate ship, Burn, Rotate Ship, Fire
ie rotations may be done at the beginning, or the end, or both, within limits
of available thrust.
Adjust rules appropriately for how fast a ship can rotate.
This may be thrust-independent - so those NSL ships with thrust 2
may be able to turn facing on a dime like anything else, it's just that their
velocity won't change very quickly.
Having turns only at the beginning makes multi-arc weapons a lot
more useful in vector. Otherwise, there's far less control over velocity
during the "pass through" phase of the "joust": you have to setup
approximately the correct vector the turn before you
The reason we went vector was to model reality as much as possible (within
reason). There is no good reason to limit turns at all. Indeed, there is no
reason you can't turn in the middle of the move and float sideways forever.
The 1 TP cost per turn limits acceleration quite enough as it turns out. Most
larger ships have lower thrust values anyway. As far as really advanced races,
the advanced weapons and the ability to apply thrust in any direction is a
significant advantage in any case. For Vorlons and Shadows we also apply a die
modifier for shooting at them as well as making it easier for them to hit. To
a lesser extent we do the same thing for
Mimbari - races that were among the stars when mankind was in toga's.
SciFi is weird alien stuff, green eyed acid spitting drooling bug eyed
monsters that are inexplainable and incomprehensable.. Sci Fi is science
applied to the possibilities of the future. Sci Fi is 100% on the Weirdometer.
Point systems may make for a balanced game, but poor science fiction. Point
systems are for Ancients gamers in competitions for a prize. I don't even use
point systems when I do ancients, or any other wargaming for that matter..
Winning and loseing matter less than a good game and great SciFi.
Some day, when SciFi RPG's are politically correct again for 50 year olds,
I'll use FT as the base for Space Opera, or whatever I use. For now, it'll be
my way to get may naval gaming fix every now and then.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
Actually no, they don't. If you watch closely, they burn towards the target,
fire straight ahead, stop accelerating, rotate to keep the target in the
engagement basket as they pass (al the while firing), then
when past the target do one of three things: A) Return to original heading and
accelerate away B) remain flying "backwards" and use main drives to decelerate
C) turn to a facing almost perpendicular to their original course and
accelerate away on a new vector
Thus, they are not doing a Rotate, Burn, Rotate, Fire sequence, where they
repeatedly turn away from the target to burn the main drive for a short burst,
then rotate back to the same target.
If you watch the large ship battles (excluding the Whitestars), then the
sequence of long continuous burns of the main drive to accelerate, while
firing with turreted weapons or fixed mount aft weapons at targets
outside the front arc becomes apparent.
I only made the suggestion because several posts had complained that in
the vector system multi-arc weapons are useless, and that Advanced Grav
drives are overpriced. To my visualization of the action, this should not be,
so I thought I would reason out the cause and a solution. My
description of the Rotate-Burn-Rotate-Fire sequence went undisputed, so
I will assume that I was right.
If you stop and follow the development of the vector movement rules (EFSB=beta
test, FB1 = 1.0, FB2 = 1.1) I noticed that my suggestion was actually the
original form of the rules.
In FB1, the main drive and maneuvers came from separate "pools" of thrust
points and the ship was allowed only one each of Rotate and Push per turn, but
some unscrupulous players took advantage of this and would
burn the main drive, the rotate 90 degrees and thruster push in order to
get more acceleration.
The patch to this was to combine Main Drive and Maneuvering into a single pool
of thrust points, but lift the restrictions on Rotations and
Pushes. Now, many players, not just the loophole-hunters, maneuver as
R-B-R-F, which causes the problems with turreted weapons and AGD. Now
that I think about it, I am sure that there are also those who let the ship
move "sideways" and use thruster pushes as half speed acceleration without
turning the ship, further reducing the benefit of AGD.
I would add to my 1 rotation limit that thruster pushes (port,
starboard, and retros) be at a rate of 1 thrust point = 1/2" or 1/4" to
reduce the "sideways acceleration instead of main drive use" syndrome.
> Matthew L. Seidl wrote:
> I think some of it comes down to your PSB.
I agree, however...
> If you think of firing as only 1 or 2 shots, with larger recharge
...what this comes down to is how long a turn represents. In several places I
have seen this as high as 10 or 20 minutes. This may seem reasonable, given
the vast distances and the motion involved, but there is more to be considered
than just that.
Some of the systems in FT have recharge times of one or more turns.
While some systems in popular sci-fi have recharge times that affect the
way the story unfolds, they are in terms of minutes, and the still affect the
way that the ship is handled and fought. For example, staying with the B5
line, if you get to the "Excalibur" and the
"Victory" in the tele-film "A Call to Arms" and the series "Crusade",
the main gun recharge time is 1 minute. If you have long turns in order
to justify a R-B-R-F sequence, then the special feature recharge time is
lost as between 5% and 10% of the whole turn, where you cannot justify
limiting the firing of the weapon every turn or having a special vulnerability
of the ship when firing. The same can be said for the Wave Motion Gun (takes
several turns to recharge).
Also, for SMLs, with a long turn, they should be able to shoot their magazines
dry in a single game turn. This is mentioned in David Weber's
Honor Harrington series, and in real life, the original Ticonderoga class CGs
(with turreted launch rails, not vertical launch tubes) could
shoot 80+ missiles off of 4 launch rails (2x twin launchers) in less
than 10 minutes.
Additionally, battles in film, TV and novels, including single ship duels,
often last mere minutes with a fatal conclusion for (at least)
one combatant. A 10-20 minute game turn means that a ship was reduced
from undamaged to expanding cloud of debris in a single game turn. I have
never seen that happen with any FT capital ships that were not
home-designed.
In the end, the Rotate-Burn-Rotate-Fire sequence can only be justified
with a long game turn, which then causes many other PSB problems throughout
the rest of the rules.
J
From: Jared Hilal
> Additionally, battles in film, TV and novels, including single ship
one combatant. A 10-20 minute game turn means that a ship was reduced
from undamaged to expanding cloud of debris in a single game turn. I have
never seen that happen with any FT capital ships that were not
home-designed.
I have--a slow moving NSL capital eating 6 SMR. Aside from that, I
agree with you on the weirdness of the thrust/turn/shoot -
turn/thrust/shoot cycle.
G'day,
> If you stop and follow the development of the vector
Unfortunately a lots happened to the rest of the system in between which also
has to be kept in mind if things aren't going to fall over.
> In FB1, the main drive and maneuvers came from separate
<sorry old rant coming on please skip to the next section> I'm not having a go
at you, but this "unscrupulous players" take many people have on this still
jars a bit for me. I can accept some people in some groups didn't like it
fullstop, fine don't allow it, but there were other groups who had no problem
with it but kept getting belted over the head from afar because they didn't
mind it... wonder how many Aces got called unscrupulous for turning with their
engines rather than against them in WWI.
> Some of the systems in FT have recharge times of one or more turns.
Unfortunately sometimes realism has to give a nod to game balance and fun.
Without the mechanic of reduced rate of fire some weapons would just have to
be exceptionally expensive to remain fairly in the game.
> Additionally, battles in film, TV and novels, including single
Happens a bit down here, with concentration of fire and disposable ordinance,
can depend on the habits of the individual players admittedly.
> In the end, the Rotate-Burn-Rotate-Fire sequence can only
I think there's always going to be problems no matter which way you cut it. I
think the most likely way around the problem of satisfying as many PSBs as
possible is to have a number of possible solutions and then the players can
pick the solution that best matches the rest of their setting. Some will
probably remain with vector as it is, others will adopt your suggestion,
others still will adopt solutions bringing the system closer to cinematic.
Everyone's happier that way;)
Cheers
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
There you go again, Beth, being reasonable and making sense. We'll have none
of that, now!
> >I think the most likely
Or, for vector, come up with the most realistic one...
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Considering that we're recreating something that has never actually happened
In Real Life, which one that is is very open to debate.....
***
> Or, for vector, come up with the most realistic
Considering that we're recreating something that has never actually happened
In Real Life, which one that is is very open to debate.....
***
Thanks, Brian, but I think we're all just gunshy enough to fill in the blanks
with 'physics as we currently understand' or 'matching the worldview of the
author' or whatever is appropriate to the mention of 'reality'.
;->=
Me, I just use the term 'codicils'...
Lovely term, codicils. Beautiful plumage...
The_Beast
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> Thanks, Brian, but I think we're all just gunshy
Actually, that was my point exactly. "I" didn't argue for realism, Laserlight
did. My reply was meant to say that arguing for one variant of Vector because
it produces weapons fire that is more "Realistic" is fraught with peril.
Arguing for it because it fits the esthetic you're trying to recreate for a
specific setting, that I'm a lot more comfy with.
> Me, I just use the term 'codicils'...
My first instinct was to say something regarding codpieces, but I don't want
to know if you find THOSE lovely.....
> Actually, that was my point exactly. "I" didn't argue
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth.
Sorry, that was never my intent.
I'm arguing for
> realistic vector MOVEMENT,
In which case you're completely missing the point of the original discussion,
which was "how does vector movement affect the way fire is resolved?"
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> So the actions of a ship over several turns look like this:
Yes they do :-) I've spent the last month+ looking closely at them, so I
have a fairly good idea
know fairly well how they behave - at least during the first two seasons
<g>
> If you watch closely, they burn towards the target, fire straight
You only seem to have looked at their behaviour when attacking large
spaceships. Now, large spaceships have one thing in common - they are
large compared to the 'Furies, which means that a) the 'Furies need to be at
close range in order to inflict serious damage so accelerating *away* from the
target while they're still shooting at it
is directly counter-productive, and
b) the 'Furies don't need to change their facing much (or even at all)
during the fly-by since they'll have some part of the target ship in
their sights anyway.
a) is very similar to the tactics you have to use in Vector if your weapons
are short-ranged - if you must close the range to inflict any damage,
then *of course* you'll start the battle with a burn towards the target! If
you never move into range, you'll never get to fire at all...
(Same with most of the large-ship duels and battles in the first B5
seasons
- they typically start outside weapon range so the combattants need to
move towards one another in order to be able to fight at all... and most of
these battles are over before the combattants get close enough that they'd
have to rotate to keep facing the enemy :-/)
> Thus, they are not doing a Rotate, Burn, Rotate, Fire sequence, where
Your "where they repeatedly turn away from the target" suggests that you're
interpreting "turn" to mean "180 degrees turn or close to it". If you instead
use the word "turn" to mean "any change of facing" (eg. the
30-60
degree turns which seem to be the norm in the Vector battles I've fought),
then your description of Vector movement is a lot more accurate, but your
counter-argument gets rather weaker :-/
You also seem to have forgotten the 'Furies' anti-fighter tactics, where
their effective weapon range is relatively long (probably due to fighters
being more fragile targets) compared to the distances between the opposing
ships. There are several *very* clear "turn, burn, turn, fire" sequences in
Star Fury dogfights, eg. in the battles against Raiders and in "The Fall of
Night"
where Sheridan teaches the B5 fighter crews how to fight Centauri) :-)
> I only made the suggestion because several posts had complained that
Except for your appearent equating of "turn" with "180 degree turn" (which
only has come to light in your latest), you were right. However, it is
important to realize that at least in the battles I've fought the turns are
usually only one or two clock facings (30-60 degrees) rather than the
full
U-turn, and that the burn consequently often is *towards* the enemy (or
at least in his general direction, trying to set up or improve on an intercept
vector).
> If you stop and follow the development of the vector movement rules
You mean "...was actually the 1.0 form of the rule". The *original* published
form of the Vector rules was the EFSB one, which restricted the
turn rate to 1 facing per thrust point spent on rotating - something
which your suggestion very explicitly advised *against*.
Unfortunately for your suggestion, you haven't correctly identified the
problem. (Unfortunately for GZG, neither did we playtesters during the FB1
and FB2 development :-/ )
What your suggestion does is to prevent the narrow-arc ships from
keeping the enemy under continuous fire (ie. shooting at him every turn)
*while accelerating away from him*. Trouble is, this is merely a special case
of
the real problem - and removing this special case while leaving the real
problem unsolved won't make wide-arc weapons any more useful.
The real problem is that the narrow-arc ships can keep the enemy under
continuous fire *at all*, as opposed to Cinematic where narrow-arc ships
tend to make an attack run and then spend several turns during which they
can't fire on lining up for their next attack run (or else come to a full
stop, in which case they can rotate freely but make themselves very easy
missile targets and also allow the enemy to control the range).
The reason why wide-arc weapons cost more than narrow-arc weapons is
that
the wide-arc weapons *in Cinematic* have a much better chance of having
a target in arc and thus on average get to fire more shots each over the
course of a (Cinematic) battle than narrow-arc weapons do. Fewer weapons
firing more shots each per battle give about the same damage-dealing
capability as more numerous weapons firing fewer shots each, so for a given
amount of points you get fewer wide-arc weapons than you could've gotten
narrow-arc weapons of the same type and class. (Kra'Vak pay the extra
points for better engines instead of for extra fire arcs, but the end result
is the same: they get fewer guns which get to fire more shots each
than the same points value of single-arc human weapons on human-engined
ships.)
However, if 1 thrust point in Vector is sufficient to rotate the ship to
any facing it likes - and in the FB Vector rules it is - then you can
almost always rotate the ship to point your single-arc guns at where the
target will be after movement. Apart from the player screwing up the
exception is if the ship's no-thrust end locations - ie. where they'll
end
the movement if they apply no thrust in any direction - are less than
twice the target's thrust rating apart... and even then you usually have a
pretty good chance of predicting where he'll end up and rotate your ship
accordingly.
IOW, instead of your single-arc weapons firing every other turn at best,
they now get to fire virtually *every* turn; and since no weapon is allowed
to fire more than once per turn the advantage a wider-arc weapon can
gain (ie. the ability to get more shots off during the battle
than narrow-arc weapons) becomes very small indeed. Taking 3-arc weapons
as
an example, IME they only get 5-10% more shots per weapon per battle in
Vector, compared to the 50-60% more they get in Cinematic - but they
still have to *pay* 50% extra even when you play in Vector.
Because of all this limiting the ship to one single rotation per game turn
in Vector does virtually nothing to solve the Vector fire-arc balance
problems. As long as one single rotation is enough to give the ship a
close-to-100% probability of acquiring a target for its single-arc
weapons each turn, and your suggestion doesn't do anything to change this, the
narrow-arc weapons will remain underpriced in the current FB
("Cinematic") design system.
Since we'd very much prefer to use the same design system for Vector and
Cinematic, the only effective option that remains is to reduce the ability
to point single-arc weapons in any direction you like in Vector to
soemthing similar to what it is in Cinematic... and that means restricting the
*angle* through which a ship can rotate in one turn.
(Which is of course the way the original (ie., EFSB) Vector rules worked, and
I'm acutely aware that I was one of the main proponents for changing it
to the FB1 system back in 1997/98 :-( In hindsight I'd rate that
screw-up
right down there with the FB2 Sa'Vasku... <sigh>)
***
> ...what this comes down to is how long a turn represents. In several
The current "standard GZGverse" FT time/distance scales use turn lengths
of 1.67 minutes and 5.32 minutes respectively (100 s and 319 s). The
corresponding distance scales are 100 km/mu and 1000 km/mu; in either
case
thrust-1 is ~1 g.
Once upon a time Steve Pugh used the MT orbital movement rules to calculate
a game scale where thrust-1 = 1/8 g, 1 mu ~ 1000 km and 1 turn = 19
minutes. The main problem with this scale is the very low thrust level -
even the fastest Sa'Vasku ships in both of the Fleet Books couldn't manage
accelerations over about 1.5 g, and no human ships could do more than 1
g!
This doesn't go too well together with the GZGverse canon saying that the
invention of gravitic compensators was a major breakthrough in warship design
(since it allowed ships to make far more radical manoeuvres without
crushing the crew), so at least in the GZGverse thrust-1 must be rather
higher than 1/8 g. Of course you can use 20-minute turns and keep
thrust-1
= 1 g, but then an Earth-sized planet would be less than 1 mu
in diameter. This look rather silly compared to the ship models, and it also
makes using the orbital movement rule difficult to use... so the
"1/8
g, 19 minutes" scale has pretty much fallen out of favour.
> Additionally, battles in film, TV and novels, including single ship
one
> combatant. A 10-20 minute game turn means that a ship was reduced
You've never found your battleship at point-blank range from a Kra'Vak
or Phalon dreadnought then? Or been the target of a concentrated
missile/plasma salvo or fighter swarm, suffered a fatal Power Core
threshold from the first incoming salvo, or... <shrug>
(FWIW quite a few of the larger ships destroyed in B5, particularly in the
Narn-Centauri conflict, blow up as a result of secondary explosions
rather than as an immediate effect of the incoming fire. The only way this can
happen in FT is if the Power Core fails catastrophically.)
Of course, in films and TV shows there's also the problem with time
compression; eg., JMS has repeatedly stated that B5 battles are often
speeded up in order to fit inside the fixed episode length :-/
> In the end, the Rotate-Burn-Rotate-Fire sequence can only be justified
Only if you consider 100 seconds to be "a long game turn".
I once calculated how long it'd take for a Renegade Legion Shiva-class
battleship (IIRC 2.5 km long, and rather slow - in FT I'd rate it as
"thrust-2") to turn 180 degrees given Full Thrust Vector manoeuvre
thrusters strengths (which are capable of pushing the ship sideways at
thrust-1) and thrust-1 ~ 1/8 g (since that's what the then-current
"standard GZGverse" scale used).
Turned out that it'd take *less than one minute* - re-running the
calculation I get 46 seconds - for the Shiva to reverse its facing. Of
course the transverse stresses on its bow section would be quite considerable,
but the thruster power is there. It could rotate 180 degrees, stop to fire
(eg. its huge spinal gun), and rotate another 180 degrees
within an 100-second game turn. (Being thrust-2 it wouldn't have any
thrust left to spend on a main drive burn though <g>)
Smaller ships or higher values of "thrust-1" reduce the time it takes to
spin around even further. Eg., combining your 'side thruster pushes at
quarter strength' concept with the 'in the GZGverse thrust-1 ~ 1 g'
scale you still get twice the effective thrust to spin the ship with than I
used
in the above example (ie. 1/4 g instead of 1/8 g), allowing the Shiva to
do an 180
turn in a mere 33 seconds or an 1714-meter EarthForce Omega-class ship
to turn around in 27 seconds; and the comparatively small warships used in the
GZGverse (where even an SDN is only 2-30000 tons) could literally twist
around in seconds.
When even huge ships like an Omega or a Shiva could potentially rotate this
fast, even the fastest "GZGverse scale" with its 100-second game turns
clearly allows a ship to make two 180-degree facing changes in a single
turn and still leave time for a main drive burn and/or firing weapons
:-7
Regards,
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
"I think the Black Russian today, Baldrick - scares the Hell out of the
Clergy...."
;-)
Jon (GZG)
> =====
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> "I think the Black Russian today, Baldrick - scares
Ok, you lost me there. I'm still learning a lot of these quotes...
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Early Blackadder (season 1?). Baldrick asks Blackadder which codpiece he'd
like to wear today.... May not be a wordperfect quote, it's from memory, but
you get the
gist.... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> =====
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Ah. Yes, he was so much funnier in those days than recently.
The Black Adder strikes again...
"we need a plan. A plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a
weasel"
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 8/28/03 2:01:49 AM,
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
<< Additionally, battles in film, TV and novels, including single ship duels,
often last mere minutes with a fatal conclusion for (at least)
one combatant. A 10-20 minute game turn means that a ship was reduced
from undamaged to expanding cloud of debris in a single game turn. I have
never seen that happen with any FT capital ships that were not
home-designed. >>
I have seen that, and been the 1 doing the damage, using a stock NSL Heavy
Cruiser, killed a FSE Battleship (Mint) in 1 turn, Cascading 6 are your
friend... Next turn took on a FSE Heavy Cruiser and Crippled it.
Turn after that, for some reason, all remaining FSE ships with range opened up
on the Heavy Cruiser, and ripped it apart.
So it does happen. And I've done it more the once like that.
> > I'm arguing for
If by "the way fire is resolved" you mean "the mechanism for various
postulated weapons", then I agree they're unknown...but that wasn't the point
of the original post. If you mean "the timing of fire resolution", then I
agree that was the point of the original post, but I'd then have to say that
it depends on the mechanics of vector movement (and thus I disagree that they
are unknown) rather than those of the hypothetical weapons, beyond what was
already discussed in that original post.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
If you mean "the
> timing of fire
Among other things. Weapons range, rates of fire, length of turn, distance,
all these things need to be taken into account. Not to mention the ultimate
goal of playability, which OO has nicely highlighted.
> (and thus I disagree that they are unknown)
If "the timing of fire resolution", depended ENTIRELY on the mechanics of
vector movement (All words yours except ALL CAPS words, added by me), then
you'd be right.
But since it's more likely that "the timing of fire resolution", depended IN
PART on the mechanics of vector movement along with OTHER FACTORS (All words
yours except ALL CAPS words, added by me), then I still have to disagree your
assertation that we can postulate "the timing of fire resolution" based only
on what we know about Vector movement.
We can, and should, strive for realism, but we should also remember it's a
game, and at that it's a game set somewhen we haven't reached yet, recreating
events we
can only postulate now, and each background/fictional
story setting is going to have certain differing assumptions, and there's no
reason we can't allow for the divergent possibilities by allowing rules
variants that recreate those settings.
> Among other things. Weapons range, rates of fire,
No. Go back and reread the original post
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200308/msg00257.html
> Not to mention the ultimate goal
If the ultimate goal is playability, why not play "scissors paper rock"? Call
it "soapbubble kravak dreadrock" to make it
GZGverse-compliant, and there you go.
> We can, and should, strive for realism, but we should also remember
We *have* reached the point where we know what vector movement is
like. The point of the original post was the thrust/turn//turn/thrust
movement sequence is unrealistic except in some special cases, and if we
assume those special cases, we have consistency problems with other parts of
the rules (and also force the rules to be less generic). By extension, we
ought to fix the rules so that we have a reasonable
vector movement sequence which does not make multi-arc weapons and
advanced drives overpriced.
***
> Not to mention the ultimate goal
If the ultimate goal is playability, why not play "scissors paper rock"? Call
it "soapbubble kravak dreadrock" to make it
GZGverse-compliant, and there you go.
***
I was with you most of the way til there, LL. By ultimate, I don't think he
necessarily means only, and perhaps really should have said paramount.
And I would argue that goal is at least first amongst equals, which include
flexibility and believability. It's the last which is where 'realism' would
enter the games goals. Not that it's an exact match, but sufficient to give
the illusion of reality, and that's far more difficult, given the differences
of audience, than simply match given real world models.
Now, GZG products generally do not patronize users' belief, so they have to be
pretty rigorous, but not arduous.
I'd even argue that, while vector mechanics has a long history and is
fundamentally a complete science, advanced tech space war based on vector
mechanics would be more fuzzy than one would first imagine.
After I'd had my kidney ripped out in December, I spent a good deal of time on
my back watching B5 almost as steadily as Oerjan recently, and I'd say we
still have somewhat different experiences in analyzing battle footage.
;->=
The_Beast
***
> Not to mention the ultimate goal
If the ultimate goal is playability, why not play "scissors paper rock"? Call
it "soapbubble kravak dreadrock" to make it
GZGverse-compliant, and there you go.
***
Doug said:
> I was with you most of the way til there, LL. By "ultimate", I don't
Paramount means "highest rank" so I'd have disagreed with that too. I'd agree
that "playability is a major concern"; but I'd say that verisimilitude is more
important (otherwise why not play "scissors..." etc). I've seen people (not
necessarily including Brian) argue "Playability Is All, therefore let's ignore
this problem that makes it
unrealistic"--i.e. "we won't bother to come up with a solution".
> I'd even argue that, while vector mechanics has a long history and is
I'd agree that you have to make some postulates on ship size, drive and
maneuver capability, and such.
> After I'd had my kidney ripped out in December, I spent a good deal of
Hmm...I saw half of B5 pilot, once...
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> I've seen people (not necessarily including
NOT including me at all. But your original
"Paper-rock-scissors" jab certainly seemed like that's
where you were lumping me.
argue
> "Playability Is All, therefore let's ignore this
My arguement was not intended to be in that vein whatsoever. Rather, my
arguement is over the definition of the problem for which a solution is
sought.
Unfortunately, I'm without access to the internet at
home, and my company's uber-anal security policy won't
allow me to view the archives. But my original impression of the issue was
that someone thought that the rules for movement resulted in a choice of
weapons tactics they found objectionable because they didn't resemble what
that person thought combat should look like. If I misunderstood, again, I'm
sorry for the error, and I'd be happy to rethink my position if someone can
present me with evidence to the contrary.
> >I'd even argue that, while vector mechanics has a
The question is, do the rules represent vector movement accurately? If not, i
agree with you. If they DO, and the only problem is with how they affect fire
resolution, then I return to my stand thast that;'s probably more an aesthetis
issue and not a realism issue.
> NOT including me at all. But your original
no, that was just reductio ad absurdum
> My argument was not intended to be in that vein
I thought the original post was pretty clear.
> The question is, do the rules represent vector
No, they don't. But in fact, what that post was saying was that
in-vector-as-currently-implemented, multi-arc weapons and advanced
drives are both overpriced -- which is IMHO pretty much undeniable.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> I thought the original post was pretty clear.
Again, I no longer have access to the original post.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Brian B wrote:
> company's uber-anal security policy won't
As the original poster, perhaps I can clear this up.
1) My group plays cinematic (I have played vector exactly four times, 3
w/ EFSB & 1 w/ FB1), so I have no personal gripe about vector, except
that it makes the Liberal Arts types in our group twitch uncontrollably
:)
2) While Lurking here, I have seen several posts from people who do play
vector complaining about perceived problems, and I thought that I would try
and help.
3) The problems that I was trying to solve were these (as identified by
others):
A) In FB2 vector, multi-arc weapons are not as useful as they are in
cinematic. This is because each ship always ends its orders with a Rotate Ship
order to bring the (much more predictable) expected loci of the intended
target ship into the maneuvering ship's primary (front) firing arc. Therefore
the general FB1 & FB2 ships (with numerous
multi-arc weapons) are at a disadvantage against home designed ships
"optimized" for vector rules with all weapons having minimum arcs to the
front, and thus more weapons for the same points and mass. B) The FB2 Advanced
Grav Drive vector ability to direct MD thrust in any
direction is significantly less useful than the AGD cinematic ability to
use any amount of thrust for turning. This is because it is easy either to
rotate the ship to burn the drives and then return to point at the enemy
(because of unlimited Rotate Ship orders) or, for ships with Thrust 4 or less,
it can be more efficient to use maneuvering thrusters to accelerate sideways
rather than spending 2 points to Rotate the ship
and then Rotate back after accelerating/decelerating. Therefore AGD are
overpriced in vector compared to normal (human/phalon) drives.
After re-reading the rules, I noticed that in the FB2 vector rules
update, ships were allowed any number of Rotate Ship maneuvers as a change
from FB1. This seemed to indicate a source of the problem.
In three of the four vector games that I played, all with very different
starting situations in terms of initial position and initial direction of
travel, after the first pass or general melee, the ships ended up traveling
roughly parallel courses (slowly converging or diverging) and exchanging fire.
Since this happened several times, I figure that this is not an uncommon
result. Further contemplation brought me to conclude
that on a larger (star system) scale, most engagements in a vector type
setting would result in situations like this. This is based on the
Newtonian physics of an approach in-system after emergence from FTL and
that a task group or squadron already in-system which desires to engage
the enemy (rather than a single high speed pass or simply "RUN AWAAAY") would
usually end up on a converging parallel course, and then the two groups would
jockey to keep the range at their own optimum while denying
the same to their opponent, if possible.
I then thought about how the new rules (as presented by the complaints posted
to this group) would affect the situation. I figured that
point-to-shoot ships would look funny as they rotate 90 degrees to their
course, burn the drive briefly to accelerate or decelerate, then rotate
90 degrees back to fire at an opponent off their port/starboard beam,
then repeating this sequence each turn. I also thought that it would be
illogical for a ship (e.g. with T:4) to be able to fire the maneuvering
thrusters (2 points max) and be able to get the same accel/decel as
rotating the ship (1 point), burning the drive (2 points), and rotating back
(1 point). The same for a ship trying to hold open the range by
remaining pointed at the enemy and burning retro-thrusters (forward) to
move the ship away from the enemy at the same rate as rotate - MD burn -
rotate. However, I can see how the AGD vector abilities should be very
useful in this situation, especially with the KraVak point-to-shoot ship
design philosophy. They could effectively accelerate or decelerate sideways
while keeping all of their single arc weapons bearing on their intended
target.
This is why I suggested limiting Rotate Ship maneuvers to 1 Rotate per game
turn (but at any point in the ship's order sequence) and reducing
the thrust potential of the maneuvering thruster to 1/2 or 1/4 MU per
point of thrust (but with no limit on the number of different thruster burns).
I feel that these two changes taken in concert would alleviate
the problems of the limited utility of multi-arc weapon mountings and
the limited advantage of the AGD compared to its point cost.
J