FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? BUT RE: OFFICIAL - GZG latest update - new release news…..

Did want to get back to “it may actually be too simple for the
combat/damage system” comment.

Been recently re-reading my copy of A Sky Full of Ships. Had a LONG
time, and parts have only been starting to click.

You are only allowed 45 degree turns, but are allowed a number based on your
‘thrust’, in FT terms. Alas, while the rules
don’t specify ‘spread evenly’, the examples
seem to say so. Shades of FT2’s ‘all examples are even
numbers.’ Still, it’s different numbers at different
points in the move, AND has Continuum’s reversing turns. Which I
STILL think is stated too vague. Sorry, OT to this note.

Even with variable numbers of 30 degrees at one or two points in the move, I
give simplicity to FT. For basic combat, though, the ASFoS is much simpler,
though ‘dirtied’ by special weapons.

If the major life changes I’m experiencing actually allow me to
play more, I think it’d be fun to attempt swapping both.

Doug

From: Douglas Evans
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:28 AM
To: 'gzg@firedrake.org' <gzg@firedrake.org>
Subject: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? BUT RE: OFFICIAL
- GZG latest update - new release news…..

Sure, you start talking about FT development, THEN you announce…
MORE GROPPOS! *seethe*

Okay, just teasing.

From the air table physic experiments of my youth, I’ve always
found cinematic as technically wrong, yet wondrously elegant. I
haven’t taken to vector in the least, even though I remember people
here finding it easier to ‘break’ newbies in to.

I’m coming around to thinking it may actually be too simple for the
combat/damage system (I know you want to take them separately, but…)

Correction: ASFoS 2ed ‘For 2 turns, the 1st is at the beginning of
movement and the 2nd at the halfway point. For 3 turns, the 1st is at
the beginning, 2nd at the 1/3 point, and the 3rd at the 2/3 point
(etc.)’

I think I may have been looking at an earlier version or
‘lite’.

Doug

From: Gzg [mailto:gzg-bounces@firedrake.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Evans
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 10:39 AM
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Subject: RE: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? BUT RE:
OFFICIAL - GZG latest update - new release news…..

Did want to get back to “it may actually be too simple for the
combat/damage system” comment.

Been recently re-reading my copy of A Sky Full of Ships. Had a LONG
time, and parts have only been starting to click.

You are only allowed 45 degree turns, but are allowed a number based on your
‘thrust’, in FT terms. Alas, while the rules
don’t specify ‘spread evenly’, the examples
seem to say so. Shades of FT2’s ‘all examples are even
numbers.’ Still, it’s different numbers at different
points in the move, AND has Continuum’s reversing turns. Which I
STILL think is stated too vague. Sorry, OT to this note.

Even with variable numbers of 30 degrees at one or two points in the move, I
give simplicity to FT. For basic combat, though, the ASFoS is much simpler,
though ‘dirtied’ by special weapons.

If the major life changes I’m experiencing actually allow me to
play more, I think it’d be fun to attempt swapping both.

Doug

From: Douglas Evans
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:28 AM
To: 'gzg@firedrake.org' <gzg@firedrake.org<mailto:gzg@firedrake.org>>
Subject: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? BUT RE: OFFICIAL
- GZG latest update - new release news…..

Sure, you start talking about FT development, THEN you announce…
MORE GROPPOS! *seethe*

Okay, just teasing.

From the air table physic experiments of my youth, I’ve always
found cinematic as technically wrong, yet wondrously elegant. I
haven’t taken to vector in the least, even though I remember people
here finding it easier to ‘break’ newbies in to.

I’m coming around to thinking it may actually be too simple for the
combat/damage system (I know you want to take them separately, but…)