G'day guys,
I guess this topic is dead and buried already, but Derek and I were discussing
it last night and he thought I should repeat here what I said last night. So
here goes.
Basically the way I see it is that the vector movement system is pretty
stylised already. Its a nifty abstraction I'll admit, but its just that an
abstraction. Thus I really can't see the problem with movement, turn, push.
Furthermore, as far as I can see all the modifications etc. suggested to fix
this one (supposed) glitch also knock out a hell of a lot more maneuvres than
just that one. So why fiddle with it? After all its not really broke as it is,
based on our experience its rarely used anyway (I think I've only ever seen
Derek's battle line of NSL push, rotate or thrust
never the lot at once - though I must admit I've used the 'bad'
move once to get some very small ships out of the way of his very big SDN).
Anyway just my thoughts on a thread which is probably long dead
- I'll try and be in the present more from now on ;)
One more question though, does some of the resistance to the 'bad' move come
from those used to cinematic or is more a case of it being
just too grating for the physics-oriented to swallow? The reason I ask
is that Showdown is my ONLY experience with cinematic (which may explain how
come my BDN ended up perfectly placed in front of
everyone's crosshairs this turn - well that's my excuse) so I'm just
trying to figure out where the sentiments are coming from.
Cheers
Beth
> At 08:56 AM 3/12/99 +1000, Beth wrote:
By the way, Beth -- that was very well done, indeed. I don't think I
could've asked for anything better, though since both Noam & I were targetting
your BDN with everythign we had anyway, I'm not sure the
placement mattered *too* much. (Just to make you feel better. ^_- )
Offhand (and on the topic) I tend to agree with you, I like (or at least don't
mind) the ability to do anything in whatever order. In fact, I'm kinda peeved
that the Fleet Book took out one of the endearing traits of
the playtest system, where you could make moves in whatever order --
i.e.,
do a mains burn, then rotate, push, rotate, and another mains burn, say.
Admittedly, you'd get further doing other orders most likely, but it was
fun. ^_^ (I also like the 1 maneuver point per point of rotation rule,
as
people in my GZG-ECC game know. Pushes were 2 MPs, and your # of MPs
was equal to your thrust rating instead of half.)
Later,
G'day,
> By the way, Beth -- that was very well done, indeed. I don't think I
Thanks for your consideration, but believe me when I say its not the worse
I've ever endured...hey when you roll dice like I do you have to be
philosophical (or plain crazy). By the way don't you think its ironic that
Kenny has survived so long? (Kenny immediately gets popped and Indy starts
belting Beth over the head yelling "You bastard!").
> (I also like the 1 maneuver point per point of rotation rule, as
Hmmm, nice idea. How much does it change/restrict the movement?
Cheers
Beth
> G'day guys,
[mass snippage]
The problem as I see it is that a high thrust ship can rotate and use a push
to essentially increase its "main drive."
I agree with others that this is an abuse of the rules - though I wasn't
above using it in Jerry's first FB race ;-)
I think that a simpler solution, more in the spirit of the rules, is that
pushes may not be within 90° of the initial movement vector. This maximises
other things that you can do with them while preventing abuse.
> At 12:04 PM 3/12/99 +1000, Beth wrote:
Good evening.... ^_^
> By the way, Beth -- that was very well done, indeed. I don't think I
<grin> I've had moments like that, but mostly with EPIC. (Something like
15 4+ dice rolls one time... and I got *two* hits! <sigh> )
> By the way don't you think its
Ironic? No. By design? Yes. <grin> We want to deprive Indy of the
chance for theatrics. ^_-
> (Kenny immediately gets popped
Of course... ya never know. ^_^
> (I also like the 1 maneuver point per point of rotation rule, as
Not much, for the faster ships. The big boats are a lot more restricted,
though, which isn't all that bad a thing IMO. Means you need a lot more
planning for those edge-of-the-board scrapes.... It would also put a
cap on this "push in direction of main thrust" thread, since you have to burn
a
fair bit of maneuver to rotate. ^_^
G'day Schoon,
> The problem as I see it is that a high thrust ship can rotate and use a
See that's my problem, why is this an abuse? I'm probably missing some
physics based response/reason here, but aren't you simply using
your available resources? The closest analogy I can come up with (which is
probably going to get me shot for only knowing half of what I'm talking about)
is from WWI aviation. There were some planes (the rotary ones I think) that
saw you turn very easily if you turned "with" the engine and I've read a
number of reports where aces used this very
feature to aid their maneuverability - using the available resources to
the limit (OK, I'll admit the very same trick could get you killed, but
hopefully you get what I mean).
> I think that a simpler solution, more in the spirit of the rules, is
I get what you mean and its not a half bad idea, but just to be a pain in the
butt (play devil's advocate a bit), why 90 degrees? Why not 60? etc. I think
it comes back down to the fact that I see it as stylised in the first place
and so have no real problem with the move. I think I'm going to have to agree
to disagree on this one.
Cheers
Beth
The Sopwith Camel was the main culprit here, it had (guessing, I don't
have a reference handy) a 2/3 turning radius to starboard because of the
rotary engine.
Back on topic; the only time I could see a ship requiring this sort of
accelleration, is to kill velocity to prevent a collision or for 180 degree
turns. Even so, this also means you are effectively thrusting in a strait
line, which can make you more predictable to hit with missiles. Sometimes it
does give you enough maneuvering to avoid missiles too.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
Cmdr Robertson - GCV Southern Skies
Fleet Admiral Doyle - NKV Vesuvius (La Fayette invasion force)
Admiral Peter Rollins - RNS Waterloo (MKW)
Gunslinger, Emperor & all-around demigod.
[quoted original message omitted]
> feature to aid their maneuverability - using the available resources
Sorry, this is off topic, but I distinctly remember that in the
mission profile of the first atomic bomb delivery they _planned_ to turn
the B29 in the direction that gave them the best turn rate because the motors
all turned in the same direction (I think it was to starboard because the
motors turned anti-clockwise but I don't remember for sure) This would
give them more distance from the blast centre. Also I would have thought that
aerobatic pilots would have to take that kind of thing into account when
planning manoeuvres....
Dan
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
Actually the turning circle is the same in either direction. The difference is
in the ability of the plane to reach the attitude where the maximum rate of
turn can be utilized. I.E. the Camel and Fokker Triplane rolled faster to the
left than to the right and therefore the plane would reach the maximum rate of
turn attitude more quickly.
Bye for now,
From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>
> just that an abstraction. Thus I really can't see the problem with
The difficulty is that a Drive 6 ship can end up moving a max of 8, not
6.
Furthermore, as far as I can see all the
> modifications etc.
One simple modificaion
> suggested to fix this one (supposed) glitch
Such as?
> So why fiddle with it? After all its not really broke as it is,
NSL doesn't usually have the Thrust rating to use it. Thrust 4 or higher only.
> One more question though, does some of the resistance to the 'bad'
I was the first (that I know of) to point out this move. I greatly prefer
vector.
I may be unsure about this, (my FB copy is at a friend's house) but the way I
understand it, any thrust used to maneuver, is taken from the "main" thrust.
So does it matter when that thrust is used? So long as the player isn't using
more thrust than his ship can take, whats is the problem?
G'day,
> just that an abstraction. Thus I really can't see the problem with
OK, I think I'm working from a different premise here. I haven't had a chance
to read the background behind the tech as yet (Derek has just said rules are
blah), so maybe I'm way off track with the way I think of things, but as far
as I'm concerned Thrust ratings is for that engine going straight ahead and
thrusters are something additional (otherwise you would have had the
restriction that
sum of main drive + thrusters = drive rating fullstop). And its because
I'm looking at it this way that I'm not too stressed by
the drive-turn-push thing (that and the fact its used once in a blue
moon).
> Furthermore, as far as I can see all the modifications etc.
I was working from memory and I just had the impression that a few people
had suggested different 'fixes' - sorry.
(I haven't more than glanced at most of the posts directly - Derek does
the
actual reading of most threads - and so I may have missed something that
you all decided upon as a good idea, so then you can tell me to pull my head
in here)
> suggested to fix this one (supposed) glitch
One of the modifications suggested was that you couldn't main drive, turn and
push fullstop (regardless of where you turned to) and this would knock out
moves like main drive forward, turn 4 starboard and then push starboard (I've
probably just got my ports and starboards back to front, but I envisaged go
forward, turn, come back at a diagonal). It just seems like a very confining
solution for something that isn't that much of a problem (as far as I'm
concerned).
> NSL doesn't usually have the Thrust rating to use it. Thrust 4 or
Well that's the NSL's design choice. He doesn't get to move very far, but his
beams always go in (i.e. always gets to roll for hits) whereas I get to flit
around but I've got to live with the fact that SMs aren't sure things.
> I was the first (that I know of) to point out this move. I greatly
So is it a physics thing that makes this move such a bad thing? Have I got
my ideas about engines cock-eyed or what? I am seriously trying to
understand what the fuss is all about - though I guess if I ever
bothered to shut up then there probably wouldn't be much of a fuss;)
Have fun
Beth
> On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Beth Fulton wrote:
> I guess this topic is dead and buried already,
as long as there are two gamers left alive on earth, this thread will go on...
we like to argue!
> Basically the way I see it is that the vector movement system
right; it's a game mechanic, and it does it's job admirably.
> Thus I really can't see the problem with
as has been said, i think people don't like the idea that a ship can actually
have more acceleration that its stated main drive, especially as there is no
way this particular maneuver could be done in the real world (well, almost no
way...).
> One more question though, does some of the resistance to the 'bad'
for me, it's the physics. as a game mechanic, i rather like thruster
pushes - they're very space opera. however, in terms of the actual
physics, they're basically not possible.
Tom
I agree with Beth. It isn't broken and its not an *abuse* but a legitimate
property of the abstraction.
In vector movement you *do* have additional thrust of half of your main drive.
Its just not on the SSD for backward compatibility with cinematic.
This can be used to increase your maximum main drive acceleration should you
so require. The disadvantage of using the burn, rotate 90, thrust, sequence is
you may well be facing the wrong way to use your weapons, but its very good
for running away. Its also a fairly obvious tactic.
We can thus agree to disagree. Core rules shouldn't change, they are
*published* and this isn't SFB (or Java) with radical changes at every
release.
Vector restriction optional/house rules can be applied in Scenario
briefing where appropriate.
Beth blinked and said:
> just that an abstraction. Thus I really can't see the problem with
Start from scratch here. Main Drive 6 means that you can use your main engine
at full power for the entire turn, and you add 6 to your vector. Thruster 3
means you can spend the entire turn using your side engines to rotate and
push. Thus if you do MD 6, rotate 90 degrees and push 2, you've
used 100% of your turn for Main Drive + 100% for your Thruster = 200%.
> Furthermore, as far as I can see all the modifications etc.
Oops, I correct myself: Someone proposed using the "/" symbol to
separate thrust segments. That way would give you move maneuverability and be
more realistic. My way would be simpler. Someone else also proposed not using
thruster pushes at all which would be even simpler....
> So is it a physics thing that makes this move such a bad thing? Have I
I suspect the listers would appreciate if further enlightenment (for either of
us) took place off list.
> Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
[snip]
> So is it a physics thing that makes this move such a bad thing? Have I
I've never really had an actual problem with this in a game, so if we want to
leave things as is, I'd be fine with that. The only place where you
might run into "abuse" is with a gaggle of Thrust 6 or 8+ ships.
However, if we just say that the "thruster push" is simply an extension of a
more efficient drive...
It keeps things simple and makes it so no one has to change anything.
> Thus if you do MD 6, rotate 90 degrees and
According to FB they are separate systems so its 100% of each as stated
above, but 100% of your total combined propulsion system (drive +
thrusters) not 200%.
Tim:
***
> Thus if you do MD 6, rotate 90 degrees and
According to FB they are separate systems so its 100% of each as stated
above, but 100% of your total combined propulsion system (drive +
thrusters) not 200%.
-= tim jones =-
***
Ok, they are separate systems. Why do the rotate at all? Just use the thrust
and drive at the same time?
The_Beast
[snipped well put words]
> We can thus agree to disagree. Core rules shouldn't change, they are
Well said Tim. I say we go with it "as is."
> Doug wrote:
> Ok, they are separate systems. Why do the rotate at all? Just
Because the trusters only fire in (logical as in relative to the ship)
directions 3 (starboard), 9 (port), 12 (rearwards) but not 6 (see the rules)
so you have to rotate at least 3 facings to line them up with the direction
the main drive just fired in and where there are no thrusters. The logic is
the main drive takes up all the room. see ASCII vision diagram
rearwards
^
T
port <T T> starboard
MD
V
forwards
Ok, so your logic is that the main drive's thrust is fired in some sort of
instantaneous pulse, then you rotate the ship, then you fire the almost
instantaneous pulse of the thruster. Course, not necessarily instantaneous,
but a small fraction of the turn's total time.
Dyson drive?
The_Beast
PS. If Schoon doesn't care, I'm willing to drop this here.
"Tim Jones" <Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk> on 03/12/99 06:51:36 AM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)
Subject: RE: [FT] A thought on that vector movement problem
> Doug wrote:
> Ok, they are separate systems. Why do the rotate at all? Just
Because the trusters only fire in (logical as in relative to the ship)
directions 3 (starboard), 9 (port), 12 (rearwards) but not 6 (see the rules)
so you have to rotate at least 3 facings to line them up with the direction
the main drive just fired in and where there are no thrusters. The logic is
the main drive takes up all the room. see ASCII vision diagram
rearwards
^
T
port <T T> starboard
MD
V
forwards
-= tim jones =-
> Ok, so your logic is ...
Not mine the Fleet Book's.
> PS. If Schoon doesn't care, I'm willing to drop this here.
Agreed <thunk>
Since I like vector movement, but agree that pushes invite abuse, here are my
few Quatloos:
Schoon> The problem as I see it is that a high Schoon> thrust ship can rotate
and use a push to Schoon> essentially increase its "main drive." Schoon> I
agree with others that this is an abuse of
Schoon> the rules - though I wasn't
Schoon> above using it in Jerry's first FB race ;-)
Hear, hear. "How to get 11 thrust of of a 10 thrust Engine"
Schoon> I think that a simpler solution, more in Schoon> the spirit of the
rules, is that Schoon> pushes may not be within 90=B0 of the Schoon> initial
movement vector. This maximises Schoon> other things that you can do with them
w Schoon> hile preventing abuse.
I see that, but it seem stoo arbitrary. I'm of the opinion that thrusters
should be ditched alltogether, rotate freely for 1 point of
thrust, and turn/thrust in any order over a turn, as long as you have
thrust points. So, a thrust 6 ship heading 12 could rotate to 6, thrust 4,
then rotate back to 12. The only real upshot is that the forward arc becomes
more powerful (easier to bring to bear), and therefore ships will likely dish
out and take more fire. This is likely balanced somewhat by the more open
ranges from the newtonian motion.
Beth>By the way don't you think its Beth>ironic that Kenny has survived so
long?=20
Aaron> Ironic? No. By design? Yes. <grin> Aaron> We want to deprive Indy of
the
Aaron> chance for theatrics. ^_-
We should all know by now, that's not going to stop him. ;-)
> Beth>By the way don't you think its
HEY!!!
Mk
Donald Hosford
> I may be unsure about this, (my FB copy is at a friend's house) but
Only in Cinematic movement. In Vector, main and maneuver thrusters are
separate.
Tim wrote in reply to... Firefall, IIRC:
> >Thus if you do MD 6, rotate 90 degrees and
You misunderstand. What the previous poster said was this:
Your ship has MD 6 and Thruster 3.
First you burn your main drive the entire turn, and increase your speed by 6.
At the end of the turn, you turn 90 degrees (or 180, it doesn't matter).
Then, still at the end of the turn, you do *another*FULL*turn* of maneuver
thrust, and increase your velocity by another 3.
So, you haven't used more than 100% of the total thrust power of the ship, but
you have used up 200% of the *time* available in a single game
turn - unless, of course, your ship manages to face in two separate
directions at once (but if it does, I'd say it is badly broken <g>).
This is the problem the discussion is all about.
> I may be unsure about this, (my FB copy is at a friend's house) but
thrust. So
> does it matter when that thrust is used? So long as the player isn't
Unfortunately that's an interpretation that doesn't jibe with the FB Rules.
They are entirely separate, so you ARE legally allowed to use your full MD, as
well as your full Thruster rating, thus the source of this debate.
> Thus if you do MD 6, rotate 90 degrees and
> According to FB they are separate systems so its 100% of each as stated
Yes and no - it depends on your choice of drive.
The only way to logically achieve something akin to th8, rotate port 3, push 3
more inside 1 turn is to assume 'impulse' type drives where the acceleration
is
applied near-instantaneously at the start of the turn (a'la orion drives
- drop
a nuke behind the ship at the start of the turn to speed up). This also fits
the fact that in FT, the current turn's acceleration is added to this turn's
movement. Of course, if you are using orion-type drives, then your
rear-arc
should be relatively impossible to damage (it's MADE to withstand repeated
nuclear explosions!). And thruster pushes are out anyway - unless you
also have all the other surfaces on your ship armored the same way.
Now if you assume non-impulse drives (acceleration applied continuously
over the course of the turn) then your above refutation is wrong. As
laserlight stated
above, you took 100% of the turn length to thrust MD, _before_ you could
turn to
do the thrust push, which would require another 2/3 of the turn
(assuming turns
are near-instantaneous) to thrust 2. You simply don't have the time to
do that.
'course if you use non-impulse drives and are concerned about the
physics of the situation you should only apply half of that acceleration this
turn (and you thought SMLs were easy to hit with before!)
Which type of drive you use depends on personal preference of course. I
greatly
prefer non-impulse myself. In fact I agree with others that the thruster
pushes are a fine mechanic, just not reasonable depending on your
technological assumptions. But laserlight stated why they are not logical (but
didn't state the assumptions he was operating under) and you refuted, so felt
another refutation was in order.
I think Keith Watt's Solar Thrust is the closest I've seen yet to realistic,
and
the next major step he could make is to apply 1/2 thrust in the turn of
acceleration. I don't believe DT Fusion drives are impulse based.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
You know, the one thing that's always kind of bothered me about pushes is that
you can't write PF i.e. push forward. If pushes represent the use of
thrusters, shouldn't those thrusters allow you to burn in any direction? ("We
need a little more Delta Vee to reach the dock", "Sorry Sir, we can't do that
without lighting off the main drive.")
This doesn't actually have anything to do with the current debate,
though. (8-)
J.
*ahem* Taking care not to push Send instead of Paste...
Jerry:
***
You know, the one thing that's always kind of bothered me about pushes is that
you can't write PF i.e. push forward. If pushes represent the use of
thrusters, shouldn't those thrusters allow you to burn in any direction? ("We
need a little more Delta Vee to reach the dock", "Sorry Sir, we can't do that
without lighting off the main drive.")
This doesn't actually have anything to do with the current debate,
though. (8-)
J.
***
This IS the discussion, Jerry. Absolutely right!
Oerjan:
***
So, you haven't used more than 100% of the total thrust power of the ship, but
you have used up 200% of the *time* available in a single game
turn - unless, of course, your ship manages to face in two separate
directions at once (but if it does, I'd say it is badly broken <g>).
***
This assumes that, as I was assuming, that the max thrust is the full thrust
that a CONTINUOUS burning engine throttled at full will put out over the
course of the turn. According to others, this is not the way the rules are
written. More a burp thrust.
Course, I've never played vector FT; obviously, my reading was off,
so I'll have to go back and re-read. I thought push, main, and
rotate came out of the same 'pool' of thrust.
Jerry, you CAN do what you suggest, IF you can rotate, push, rotate back
again.
Do the rules say you can't?
> Doug wrote:
> Jerry, you CAN do what you suggest [use your thrusters to "push
Yes. If you both rotate and thruster push in the same turn, FB only allows you
to do one of each. Your example uses two rotations and one thruster push.
'Course, there's no reason not to use the main engines in this case -
they're kinda designed to push forward, after all :-/
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
I thought that was just a suggestion; nobody's ever actually come out and said
'FT engines work like this...', so nobody knows. (At least, I don't remember
Jon T. saying anything like this... can anybody who's got a copy of FT, FT 2nd
Ed., or FB clarify?)
> Jerry, you CAN do what you suggest, IF you can rotate, push, rotate
If memory serves, it says 'there are three different types of pushes...' which
pretty well says 'you can't.'
And there's a difference between the push forward, and what you suggest.
With a rotate, push, rotate, I lose two points of thrust in the rotation. I
just want to burn. Full burn. Full throttle on the main engine, full throttle
on all the thrusters, throw things out the windows backwards as
hard as you can. Burn, baby, burn! (8-)
Push forward doesn't address the problem with rotating 90 and pushing, because
I would do that if I needed to pick up velocity, but rotate to face the enemy.
(Though you could rewrite your orders so that, instead of: MD6, RP3, PS2, you
could write MD6, PF2, RP3. Both have the same net
effect at the end of the turn, but one looks physically possible. (8-)
)
I think it's just an artifact of the system, like it or not, and if you don't
like it, house rule it. Everybody's done that with everything else in FT
at one point or another. (8-)
J.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Oh, is that in there? Played too much EFSB damnit. (8-)
> 'Course, there's no reason not to use the main engines in this case -
I know... but the lack of symmetry bothers me. There should be thrusters on
all sides, and you should be allowed to PF, even if it serves no good purpose
(other than increasing your ship speed, so you don't need to the
rotate/push thing.)
J.
***
> Jerry:
***
> This assumes that, as I was assuming, that the max thrust is the full
I think what is going on is that Jon wrote the rules to be simple -
changing speed by the amount of acceleration is simpler in terms of speed and
bookkeeping than only changing it by half this turn and another half next
turn. Jon may not have even considered that idea when originally creating the
rules (he would have to answer that himself). But it definately feels like the
simplest
mechanic -
very much in keeping with FT spirit. Only later did the propeller heads (most
people on this thread with a strong opinion - myself included) try to
reverse
engineer the 'real-life' systems that follow this game mechanic.
So simply put, Jon made a simple game mechanic, and we are trying to
force-fit
reality into it. Instead of looking at the simplest realistic system and
creating a mechanic that models it. But I still think Jon did a pretty
bang-up
job all the way around.
> Thus if you do MD 6, rotate 90 degrees and
Tim said:
> According to FB they are separate systems so its 100% of each as stated
You've used 100% of the TIME available for each drive, yes. In succession,
not simultaneously. That's why it's a problem.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
There are. The thrusters at the back of the ship are called the "main drive".
- Sam
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> I may be unsure about this, (my FB copy is at a friend's house) but
thrust. So
> does it matter when that thrust is used? So long as the player isn't
I just got back from the doc's. Had to have a serious case of "Athelete's
Toung"
(Foot-in-mouth -- It's amazing how one can still communicate this
way...8D)
I was able to look that up....Fleetbook, Page 3, first column, "Maneuver
thrust" section, 2nd paragraph....(see I did look it up...:)
The maneuver thrust is 1/2 of the main thrust, but does not use main
thrust to turn the ship. (Essentially it is free. I suppose one would go
slowly nuts if one had to keep track of every detail...)
> Samuel Reynolds wrote:
I'm aware of that, but beyond the main drive. A spacecrafts thruster tree
should cover all rotational and translational axes (axis? What's the plural
for axis? (8-) ). As I said, it's mostly a symmetry thing. Besides,
I can think of a nice house rule for FT where the Main Drive and the Thrusters
are actually separate systems, so you can still maneuver on thrusters if the
MD buys it.
J.