> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:59:10 -0500
> Question:
We tried a couple games using a VERY simple system of six levels (so we could
place a D6 with each ship as a marker). I think we added 6" to the range of
any weapon firing at a ship at a different level, 6" per level, but I can't
remember how we did the movement. It may have been that we subtracted 6" from
the distance moved per level change. Like I said we wanted it VERY simple. It
slowed the game down VERY MUCH, but some people liked it. To my knowledge no
one at the local club is doing this now, since they like the speed of play too
much to sacrifice it for a little 3D.
Question: Has anyone tried incorporating the 3rd dimension into FT? The
simpler rules system almost invites it, since the main problem is navigational
record keeping and visual representation.It seems that with great computer
aids like FTmap, it might be less hard to do than solely outside the virtual
world. If such a thing could be done there'd be a final wedge driven between
space sims and 2d navy or surface combat sims.
> > From: "Noam R. Izenberg" <izenberg@jhuapl.edu>
Well, as the original TRAVELLER rules pointed out, since 3 points define a
plane, any ship engagement with three or fewer ships can be fought on a flat
plane with little or no distortion.
Other than that, I've tried many methods of doing 3-d,
and they then to be more trouble than they are worth.
SPI's Foxbat and Phantom had 30 counters for each plane, to show the plane at
any of the 30 possible altitude levels. Ick.
Taurus' BATTLE FOR ANDROMEDA and SPI's Star Force merely had the
ship's altitude recorded on a separate record sheet. Hardly intuitive.
SPI's Battlefleet Mars had two maps, one showing the x-y plane
and the other showing the x-z plane (i.e., "top view" and
"side view"). Each ship was represented by dual counters, one on each map. It
was a bit difficult to visualize. (It would have been better if the side view
map was mounted on a sheet of metal, and set in a frame at 90 degrees to the
top view map. Stick magnetic counters on the side view map, and have fun)
Metagaming's Holy War & Godsfire, and SPI's WorldWrecker made each hex huge,
with spaces for each of the hex's level. Nice idea, but messy in practice.
My idea never worked very well. Have you ever seen a red-blue
analglyph? You look through red-blue glasses, and the image
seems to be in 3-D. The amount the red and blue images
are separated determines how "high" the image appears. So I tried to make
counters with a blue image, encased in a sleeve of transparent cellophane with
a red image on it. By sliding the sleeve, one could adjust how high the
counter was.
Alas, it had problems.
(for a red-blue 3-d starmap I made, chieck out my
3-d starmap web page, at
http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/starmap.html
* A B S I T * I N V I D I A * V E R B O ** I D E M * S O N A N S
*
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----+
| WINCHELL CHUNG
http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise at the Praeternatural Tower
nyrath@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ:
]--------------------------+
| /_\ | RULE: "(sqrt(-1)) before (2.71828), except after
(186,242 |
> > Question:
[various games that tried 3-d, and another home-attempt at 3-d here]
Personally I think 3-d-ing it is more trouble than it's worth, but I
have toyed with the idea, esp after seeing some of those WWI biplane minis
games at some conventions. Doesn't look like it'd be that tough, but would
take a bit more time to calculate things.
The idea, for those who haven't seen these, is to mount your planes (or, in
our case, ships) onto a thin pole or stick, say, 5' high or so. Said pole or
stick is mounted to a sturdy base (naturally;). Up and down the pole are tick
marks, say, every inch (or 'mu'). To adjust your height you just slide
your mini up/down the pole (attached with small c-clamps or something of
that ilk). Your movement would have to be calculated trignometrically if you
deviate from the horizontal plane. Can be done, but take some effort. More
effort than I would want to put into it. ;-) And range is easy to
calculate. Just take your favorite measuring device (measuring tape, whatnot),
and hold it between the minis. As for arcs, you would have to decide whether
or not
your arcs cover 180 degrees 'up/down' in the direction the weapon(s) in
question is/are facing, or if you'd need 2 new arcs: 'up' and 'down'.
Assuming you get two new arcs and opt to make them 'blind' spots, guess you'll
have to 'dive' your ship around to bring weapons to bear (hmmm...interesting
tactical exercise here...).
Well, my $0.02 worth on the subject. Personally I'm going to stick with the
2-d abstraction and leave it at that. :-)
Mk
> > Question:
[snip]
> it between the minis. As for arcs, you would have to decide whether or
Assuming
> you get two new arcs and opt to make them 'blind' spots, guess you'll
Well, everyone who has read FT and MT knows my personal take on this -
that 3D is much less important in space games that in air games, as all
dimensions in space are the same as far as movement is concerned - not
so
in air games, of course, where altitude and vertical-plane performance
is often MUCH mor eimportant that horizontal manoeuvre. As several have
already said, IMHO it isn't worth the hassle to put 3D into a space game (FT
or any other).
Having said that, I think if you ARE keen on doing 3D then the ATTITUDE of the
ships is much more important that just their relative "height" above
the playing surface - this is something that Mark has touched on with
his
On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:34:59 +0000, Ground Zero Games
> <jon@gzero.dungeon.com> wrote:
> We could probably work some simple(ish) attitude rules (even just
I heartily agree. Allowing a ship to roll would be a simple addition
to the main rules. Of course, if you want to be GW-ish, you could come
up with a whole new range of upside down starship models....
I WAS ONLY KIDDING ABOUT THE MODELS, OKAY????!!!?
> Jon T. wrote:
> Having said that, I think if you ARE keen on doing 3D then the
above
> the playing surface - this is something that Mark has touched on with
Well... Leviathan allows you to roll your ship upside-down to present
your
least-damaged broadside to the enemy, but there's no 3D movement and no
"up" or "down" arcs. I've done the same in FT for a long time now (1/2
your maneuver thrust rolls the ship upside down) with good results. However,
if you use the vector movement rules (eg from EFSB), you get almost the same
result by flying your ship backwards (especially if you're Centauri
<g>)! A
note in the order sheet suffices to keep track of which ship is
upside-down
and which is not.
> We could probably work some simple(ish) attitude rules (even just
I strongly recommend this.
> At 10:29 PM 2/14/98 GMT, you wrote:
This sounds like a GREAT idea. Even a simple implementation would add quite a
bit of tactical subtly to the game.
On Saturday, February 14, 1998 9:35 PM, Ground Zero Games
> [SMTP:jon@gzero.dungeon.com] wrote:
> We could probably work some simple(ish) attitude rules (even just
John Treadways 3D spheres did this physically, cut the bottom out of two PET
pop/soda bottles
mount the ship model inside, close the sphere. Mount the sphere on a cup base,
so it can freely rotate and the model will now hold any attitude.
Next come up with the attitude rules. Use the FT turn thurst rules, just use
3d movements for the 3 degrees of freedom, with the usual half thrust
available limit.
P(ort) S(tarboard) yaw U(p) D(own) pitch L(eft) R(ight) roll
Firing arcs, should be conic or half conic (sections).
sincerely
> Having said that, I think if you ARE keen on doing 3D then the
After more thought, that's at the heart of my hankering for 3D. While I think
the fleet level implications of 3D are very interesting (imagine having 360
degrees of flanks to guard or attack instead of just left and right side) it's
individual ship maneuver that I was initially thinking of. When I used to play
SFB, I would just die wanting to roll 180 to face undamaged shields or blast
away with a fresh volley of charged weapons. I made up a set of roll pitch and
yaw rules to that effect, which worked decently, I think.I understand that 3D
can add a a great deal of complexity, which is why I thought that putting it
in a play aid like FTmap would be the easiest way to incorporate it. The trig
would be automated, so attitudes, facing, bearing arcs, and ranges could be
spat out pretty easily, and the graphics could be modified relatively easily
to show 3-space. I understand this begs the question of miniature use,
which is what most folks on this list do.
> We could probably work some simple(ish) attitude rules (even just
A most excellent idea. That adds both more flexibility, and in a way more
firepower to most ships.
Jon,
( Enjoyed the day yesterday.) I think this is a good idea and would be an easy
way of allowing for "roll ship" tactics (ala Harrington novels) in FT. How
about including it in FTIII?
Mike Elliott
______________________________ Reply Separator
____________________________
_____
Subject: Re: Dimension
Author: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzero.dungeon.com> at BULL
Date: 14/02/1998 21:34
Well, everyone who has read FT and MT knows my personal take on this -
that 3D is much less important in space games that in air games, as all
dimensions in space are the same as far as movement is concerned - not
so
in air games, of course, where altitude and vertical-plane performance
is often MUCH mor eimportant that horizontal manoeuvre. As several have
already said, IMHO it isn't worth the hassle to put 3D into a space game (FT
or any other). Having said that, I think if you ARE keen on doing 3D then the
ATTITUDE of the ships is much more important that just their relative "height"
above
the playing surface - this is something that Mark has touched on with
his arc comments here, but something seldom addressed in those games that
purport to be 3D, especially those using counters (RL Leviathan, IIRC, did
have limited attitude rules worked by turning the "box" counter around, even
though it was not actually 3D). We could probably work some simple(ish)
attitude rules (even just allowing ships to "roll" 180 degrees) into FT,
without getting bogged down with actual 3D play. Jon (GZG)
> I heartily agree. Allowing a ship to roll would be a simple addition
Sorry Allan, it has already been done -- check out the models for the
FSE, specifically the San Miguel class Destroyers (FT605) and the Ypres class
Battlecruiser (FT609). If you look at the details, you'll see that the
Destroyers are just part of the Battlecruiser that has been cut down to a
smaller size and flipped over.:)