FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? was: Re: [FT] Quiet in here, isn't it.

Hi all,

OK, so let's get the ball rolling and get folks talking about things that may
be useful contributions towards the (eventual) publication of FT3 (FT Third
Edition)!

First, a small disclaimer: I realise that this is essentially an open and
public list, BUT that notwithstanding, I'd ask you all to please
limit discussions of FT3 to this list, and not to re-post things about
it anywhere else - at least for the time being. When I get to the stage
of actual firm concepts for testing then I will be looking to set up a small
closed group to discuss things in more depth, with NDAs and such where
appropriate. For now, this will be a general discussion between those of us on
this list who are still interested!

Right, so my first question to you all: MOVEMENT SYSTEM(S) IN FT?

What Movement System do you use, or have you used in the past when you've been
actively playing FT? Just the basic Cinematic movement? One of the Vector
options, and if so which one(s)? Which do you prefer, and why?
Have you modified any of the published (officially or fan-done) systems
to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?

When you reply/discuss, please let me have some background on your
gaming so that I can tell which ideas are theoretical and which are
table-tested - do you still play FT (and if so, which version?), have
you played actively in the past, are you an interested spectator or
Armchair Admiral? ;-)

Obviously the new edition will retain the basic cinematic movement
system as per the current FT Light rules - what I'm looking to discuss
is whether it will also necessarily have a Vector system option (and if so,
what version) as part of the new basic book, or whether that should be saved
for an advanced rules supplement?

OK, over to you all……  ;-)

Hi Jon,

Well, you know me, more or less.  ;-)    I use primarily the cinematic
movement rules, though I'll use the vector rules when someone runs a game
using them. While it's not Newtonian, cinematic comes more intuitive to me.
(maybe because that's what I've been playing since '94 ;-) ).  I have
not
delved far into the various fan-based rules sets out there (Continuum,
Warlord, et al), tending to use the FB version of the rules when I get some FT
time in, which is two or three times a year right now with everything else
going on.

Mk

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
systems to
> your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:43:23AM +0100, Jon Tuffley wrote:

I like cinematic for big games, vector for small ones. Vector takes longer per
ship, both to plan and to execute, but is more satisfying
because it gives more real-feeling results. The problem with cinematic
for me is the way fast-moving ships can blip all over the map; once
they get up above about speed 15-20, the chevron enclosing the areas
they can reach stretches across the whole table. There's no point in trying to
engage them with fighters or missiles, and all one can do is hunker up in a
fist of death and hope to avoid defeat in detail.

Generally I use vector as amended by FB2, or for really small battles my
custom vector system that's even slower but physically realistic, as noted at
http://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2014/04/Painfully_Realistic_Vector_Mov
ement.html
. I wouldn't want that with more than 2-3 ships per side.

My last tabletop FT game was probably about five years ago but I played quite
a lot before then. (These days I'm playing tabletop Harpoon, so you should not
use me as a guide to what the typical wargamer would like!)

R

Thanks Roger and Indy for your quick responses - everyone else feel free
to chip in when you read this - you don't have to be a regular FT player
now, if you've EVER played, no matter how long ago, I'd like to hear any
relevant comments on this question!  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

> On 20 Oct 2015, at 12:08, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:43:23AM +0100, Jon Tuffley wrote:
systems to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?
> I like cinematic for big games, vector for small ones. Vector takes
http://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2014/04/Painfully_Realistic_Vector_Mov
ement.html
> . I wouldn't want that with more than 2-3 ships per side.

I use primarily the cinematic movement rules also as Iprefer fleet scale
actions an it's easier to deal with ontable. Don
     From: Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com>
 To: gzg@firedrake.org
 Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 5:43 AM
 Subject: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? was: Re: [FT]
Quiet in here, isn't it.

Hi all,

OK, so let's get the ball rolling and get folks talking about things that may
be useful contributions towards the (eventual) publication of FT3 (FT Third
Edition)!

First, a small disclaimer: I realise that this is essentially an open and
public list, BUT that notwithstanding, I'd ask you all to please
limit discussions of FT3 to this list, and not to re-post things about
it anywhere else - at least for the time being. When I get to the stage
of actual firm concepts for testing then I will be looking to set up a small
closed group to discuss things in more depth, with NDAs and such where
appropriate. For now, this will be a general discussion between those of us on
this list who are still interested!

Right, so my first question to you all: MOVEMENT SYSTEM(S) IN FT?

What Movement System do you use, or have you used in the past when you've been
actively playing FT? Just the basic Cinematic movement? One of the Vector
options, and if so which one(s)? Which do you prefer, and why?
Have you modified any of the published (officially or fan-done) systems
to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?

When you reply/discuss, please let me have some background on your
gaming so that I can tell which ideas are theoretical and which are
table-tested - do you still play FT (and if so, which version?), have
you played actively in the past, are you an interested spectator or
Armchair Admiral? ;-)

Obviously the new edition will retain the basic cinematic movement
system as per the current FT Light rules - what I'm looking to discuss
is whether it will also necessarily have a Vector system option (and if so,
what version) as part of the new basic book, or whether that should be saved
for an advanced rules supplement?

OK, over to you all……  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

> Jon Tuffley wrote:
systems to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?

Recent space ship experiences : X-wing and a tiny bit of SW armada:-)

For fighters cinematic is perfectly fine.
For big ships some kind of momentum/delay would be nice. Whether by
tricksy vector movement or by having to plan multiple turns ahead does not
matter that much. As long as not too much bookkeeping is involved.

> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:40, Frits Kuijlman <frits@kuijlman.net> wrote:

> Jon Tuffley wrote:
systems to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?
> Recent space ship experiences : X-wing and a tiny bit of SW armada:-)

Not having played it…. what kind of movement system does SW Armada use?

Jon (GZG)

> For fighters cinematic is perfectly fine.

Having waited a bit for an intelligible answer...

Haven't played it either, but it seems to use jointed measuring sticks, and
rules for larger ships having delayed orders.

I have the basic set and a fair number of X-Wing, and only played twice.
Have, but not played, Armada.

Actually, I'm looking forward to Halo Fleets, as I've heard very good things
compared TO Armada; yeah, I know, 'really? Spartan Games???'

Doug

[quoted original message omitted]

Hi Jon,

I manage to get a game or two in every 2-3 months. We use cinematic
movement and FT Remixed rules (or Cross Dimensions - I'll have to check
which is in my box file).

Given the number of variants already out there already, maybe it would
be worth taking FT3 in a slightly different direction - fleet action
rather than squadron action. One problem at the moment is that FT does
tend to bog down once you get past 8-10 ships per side; particularly so
if you have fighters as well. Of course, then there would be the problem of
the table looking very crowded unless some smaller scale versions were to be
released...

Tamsin
________________________________________
From: Gzg [gzg-bounces@firedrake.org] on behalf of Jon Tuffley
[jon@gzg.com]
Sent: 20 October 2015 11:43
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Subject: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? was: Re: [FT]
Quiet in here, isn't it.

Hi all,

OK, so let's get the ball rolling and get folks talking about things that may
be useful contributions towards the (eventual) publication of FT3 (FT Third
Edition)!

First, a small disclaimer: I realise that this is essentially an open and
public list, BUT that notwithstanding, I'd ask you all to please
limit discussions of FT3 to this list, and not to re-post things about
it anywhere else - at least for the time being. When I get to the stage
of actual firm concepts for testing then I will be looking to set up a small
closed group to discuss things in more depth, with NDAs and such where
appropriate. For now, this will be a general discussion between those of us on
this list who are still interested!

Right, so my first question to you all: MOVEMENT SYSTEM(S) IN FT?

What Movement System do you use, or have you used in the past when you've been
actively playing FT? Just the basic Cinematic movement? One of the Vector
options, and if so which one(s)? Which do you prefer, and why?
Have you modified any of the published (officially or fan-done) systems
to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?

When you reply/discuss, please let me have some background on your
gaming so that I can tell which ideas are theoretical and which are
table-tested - do you still play FT (and if so, which version?), have
you played actively in the past, are you an interested spectator or
Armchair Admiral? ;-)

Obviously the new edition will retain the basic cinematic movement
system as per the current FT Light rules - what I'm looking to discuss
is whether it will also necessarily have a Vector system option (and if so,
what version) as part of the new basic book, or whether that should be saved
for an advanced rules supplement?

OK, over to you all……  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

Cinematic for me. Last played @ 6 months ago using the Continuum rule book
(completeness). I like the idea of planning turns in advance (then you could
have Captain or Admiral ratings that changed how long to plot).

Regarding speed in excess of 20, generally not a problem on the size tables I
play on.

Speeding up threshold checks would IMHO be a good thing

Michael Brown

mwsaber6@msn.com

> Subject: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? was: Re: [FT]
systems to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?
> When you reply/discuss, please let me have some background on your

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 03:09:05PM +0100, Jon Tuffley wrote:

Complex. :-)

Changing speed takes commands (dials and tokens), and for a big ship you may
be doing it several turns in advance. (And there's a speed limit for each
ship.) Then you have a yaw value for that combination of (ship, speed and
joint number on the tool), and you can bend each joint of the tool that many
clicks from a straight line when you move the ship.

So for example
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/victoryI.png
has a speed limit of 2. If it's doing speed 1, the first joint can go one
click either way; if it's doing speed 2, the first joint has to be straight,
and the second joint can go one click. No ship does more than speed 4.

I think having a speed limit may be the most important step to making
cinematic mode more playable.

Thanks for all the responses so far, keep 'em coming!

Most interesting thing at the moment is that most of those of you who have
responded seem reasonably happy with the simple cinematic movement……

Just a couple of notes to steer the discussion:

I won't be changing any of FT's fundamentals, at least not at this stage. A
"bigger fleets" game would be something for future development,
not for right now - FT3 will be a new version of the original game -
basically the current FT Light with the same sort of expanded bits that
the original FT 2nd Ed had - introducing defences (active and passive),
more weapons (including missiles in various flavours), introducing fighters,
shipbuilding rules, a bit of optional background and maybe some scenario
generation rules.

I'm not going to try to cram everything into one book - I want this
particular publication to be effectively "FT Standard", one step up from
FT Light. Fleet-specific designs and resources, advanced rules, alien
rules and so on will be in supplements.

I've played FT on an off since 90/91.  I've used both types of movement
-
cinematic and vector as discussed in the FBs.

I tend to prefer vector but that may be because of the size of fleets I
normally play (5-10 ships per side).  If I was routinely putting 40-60
ships on the table I'd probably default to cinematic or use another rule set
that didn't require status sheets.

A topic for another day -- should fighters be treated as "first class
objects" in FT i.e. thrust + move plotting?

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Thanks Roger and Indy for your quick responses - everyone else feel
One of
> the Vector options, and if so which one(s)? Which do you prefer, and
systems
> to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?
http://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2014/04/Painfully_Realistic_Vector_Mov
ement.html
> > . I wouldn't want that with more than 2-3 ships per side.

I'm still the fuddy duddy I suppose, because I still play cinematic movement.
I ran a couple of games at a small local con a while back and was able to get
stragglers involved in the game in no time at all. But that's not the main
reason that I like cinematic movement. It helps me focus on the game more than
vector movement. I still play FT2 also, but let's not go there. I'm resistant
to change.

I still play a vector movement game every now and then, but it's Starwar 2250,
based in John McEwan's Starguard Universe, and free on the internet. That
vector system is easy to use and you even get 3 dimensions.

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
systems to
> your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?

> On 20 Oct 2015, at 21:43, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

I don’t really play FT any more because my young captains have moved on to
other interests. When we were playing most actively, we were using
the FB1-amended-by-FB2 vector system, but normally subject to a house
rule that manoeuvring thrusters could *only* be used to pivot the ship, not
“push” it. Our “fleets” were relatively small, so we didn’t have
problems with managing vector.

The reason for the house rule was that we were mainly playing in a hard SF
“High Frontier” campaign environment, and thrusters capable of half the
thrust of the main engines are ridiculous. Certain optional
weapon-systems and defences were excluded also on “science” grounds,
and newer systems not supported by Roger Burton West’s Shiptool (grasers,
for example), which we were still using to print off our SSD sheets, were too
much trouble to bother with.

RB

I'm on the side (seems to be the minority) for whom vector is easier -
it just feels natural. I tried cinematic a few times, but I remember it as
feeling unintuitive and more complicated. Perhaps it was simulating the
difficulties of commanding a fleet, but I liked having more control. So I
mostly used the FB1 vector rules with FB2 amendments. Oh also without
requiring the ships to stick to 30° clock points. (Actually, I should go back
and try cinematic with that adjustment.)

I've wanted to experiment with missiles/fighters moving like ships
(using vector movement), but haven't actually tested that out yet.

The last time I actually played was last winter (or early spring). I
usually play with groups of around 8-12 ships per side give or take a
bit
and not many fighters/missiles.

Loosely related - I've always liked written sci-fi (including hard SF
and
military SF); but not so much hollywood sci-fi.  Could be why vector
feels more right to me.

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
systems to
> your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?

Well recently I have been farting around with Power Projection which is the
Traveller Centric conversion of FT that uses vector. I also have been playing
with GDW's Mayday which is also Vector using hexes and positional counters. So
lots of Vector recently, but I have been pondering the cinematic movement for
the next round, mostly to simplify for the boy and his crowd, who haven't
played a lot of space games.

To the extant of the later I have been pondering a hex based fork of the
cinematic with a more freeform movement phase i.e. turn-modes for
different hull size and engined ships. But this is still just back of the
notebook sorts of musings up there with skill based fire resolutions....

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Ray Taylor <falkon1313@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm on the side (seems to be the minority) for whom vector is easier -
So I
> mostly used the FB1 vector rules with FB2 amendments. Oh also without
systems
> to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?

> On 21-Oct-15 9:28 AM, Bobby wrote:

I'm in the vector camp - I believe its mostly the FB2 variant. I
actually
have a harder time making sense of the cinematic movement - but its
probably because I'm a physics teacher and vectors are something I talk about
nearly every day.

I generally get a game in once or twice a year, but I tend to buy ships at a
faster rate than I can play them. I also tend to try and run too big of games
because I want to use ALL my ships for a particular nationality. Vector does
tend to bog down a bit depending on how much time I have to spend teaching the
vector movement system. I do find that people pick it up after a couple of
rounds. I just like it because I'm more of a hard science fiction fan, and I
use it to run combats in my own roleplaying setting.

House Rules: I've got a set of house rules that I've been using for most of
the last 10 years or so. I'll list them out:
1) Fighters follow vector movement - I never liked that fighters could
be outrun by ships that built up to a high velocity. I don't make fighters
pre-plot movement, and they don't have facing so they can apply their
thrust in any direction. I generally give fighters a thrust of 12, but they
rarely use that much due to the next house rule. I like fighters using vector
because it takes more skill to set up multiple attack runs so fighters can't
just dominate the battle. I also incorporated a few rules ideas from the
fighter beta rules from many years ago. The biggest one is that fighters can
be attacked by beam weapons (but see house rule #2).

2) Evasion: Fighters and ships can spend thrust on evasive maneuvers instead
of changing course. Each point of evasion is equivalent to a level
of shielding against beams (or -1 to the to-hit roll for pulse
torpedoes) up to a maximum of 3 evasion points (so that only 6's hit on
beams). Evasion works better for fighters and smaller ships: each point of
evasion
costs thrust points equivalent to the mass of the ship / 25 (with a
minimum cost of 2 thrust points). I find this house rule to be a great way to
make
small ships last longer in a big battle - they coast into the middle of
the battle and use most of their thrust on evasion and make themselves much
less desirable targets because they're hard to hit. This does add a lot of
tactical decision making - once they get in close they sometimes need
the thrust to maneuver to line up better targets, but it puts them at more
risk. Fighters also usually use 6 points of thrust to get 3 evasion points,
making it very difficult for a ships main beams to hit them (PDS ignore
evasion).

3) I've started dabbling with some changes to Salvo Missiles: instead of
rolling to see how many missiles are on target, I just use 6-distance
from target. This way a close hit is rewarded with more missiles on target.
Even though I use vector and its easier to predict future locations, the
penalty for missing with half the missiles if you miss by more than 3" tends
to allow PDS's to handle the attack.

So...that turned out longer than I meant to. I'm just thrilled that you're
thinking about an update. I've tried a couple of other systems, but nothing
seems to hold my imagination like Full Thrust.

Randy Wolfmeyer

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Zoe Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:

> On 21-Oct-15 9:28 AM, Bobby wrote:

> What Movement System do you use, or have you used in the past when
One
> of the Vector options, and if so which one(s)? Which do you prefer,

Haven't played Full Thrust for about 4 years now, due to other commitments and
changes in the local gaming group.

Before that, friendly and tournament games were all with Cinematic movement.
It's not hard to explain or learn, and is a good match for a lot of
TV/film
science fiction. To me, Full Thrust is a more "cinematic" space combat game
than hard science.

I've also tried Vector in friendly games, and an almost identical movement
system in another tabletop space game. I like the idea, but tracking exact
angle increments is a pain. Clock points with hex bases are easy to align.
Trying to calculate and accumulate exact angles is trickier, and can lead to
arguments when moving after missiles have been placed.

Plus the current system doesn't handle fighters.

> Have you modified any of the published (officially or fan-done)
systems
> to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?

Yeah, I designed a new set of movement rules:

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 16:28, Randy Wolfmeyer <rwwolfme@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, this goes to a fundamental problem with space-fighters in SF,
doesn’t it? They are always lazily imagined to have the same relationship in
terms of speed and manoeuvrability to larger spaceships that aircraft today do
to ships on the ocean. Which makes no sense at all.

Aircraft move in a different medium from marine ships, while
space-fighters would move in the same medium as other spacecraft.
Fighters *might* have an advantage in acceleration, but there is no reason why
they should have a higher maximum speed.

RB.

> On Thursday 22 Oct 2015 08:31:16 Robert N Bryett wrote:
wrote:
> > I never liked that fighters could be outrun by ships that built up

When I imagine them to be practical, I imagine space fighters as
being high acceleration, low delta-vee. Big ships need to get
across a solar system in a reasonable time, so can have a low(er)
acceleration but need a high delta-vee. The fighters are then
deployed at the destination where they only need a short range.

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:31:16AM +1100, Robert N Bryett wrote:
Fighters *might* have an advantage in acceleration, but there is no reason why
they should have a higher maximum speed.

There's no _physical_ reason why anything in space should have a
maximum speed, but the way cinematic movement makes the game non-fun
at high speeds suggests that there's a _game_ reason.

I think I might say something like "no ship may move faster than 2x its
initial Thrust rating". Even that might be too fast.

I'd think the size of the table would limit practical speeds.

D.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 7:39 PM, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:31:16AM +1100, Robert N Bryett wrote:
Fighters *might* have an advantage in acceleration, but there is no reason why
they should have a higher maximum speed.
> There's no _physical_ reason why anything in space should have a

Played for the first time in about a decade earlier this year. I taught my son
and a friend. We used cinematic movement on a 4' x 4' table, with centimetre
movement units. We didn't use vector, though we talked about possibly using it
next time. I don't know if it would catch on, as cinematic was fun enough.

We didn't use any modified rules. We also didn't play with fighters. We talked
about using fighters next time, but we want to do some research to find the
fighter rules that work best.

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
systems to
> your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:46:11PM -0400, Damond wrote:

Because space is finite? :-)

(Seriously, a non-floating table is a game-ish solution, which is
perhaps hard to justify.)

Maybe we could try an approach like:

For each velocity increment of 16 we could double the effective mass of the
ship.

So a ship moving 0 to 16 requires 1 unit of power to turn or increase by 1
unit A ship moving 17 to 32 requires 2 unit of power to turn or increase by 1
unit A ship moving 33 to 48 requires 2 unit of power to turn or increase by 1
unit Etc.

Been about 5 years since I moved away from the group I played with...

> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:54:55 +0100
[FT] Quiet in here, isn't it.
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:46:11PM -0400, Damond wrote:

Unless you are defending an area or region, then it is easier to justify.
:-)   Often, though, that usually involves some sort of 'space terrain'
(depending on scale being used, could be a base, an asteroid, a moon, or a
planet), or maybe a disabled ship.

Mk

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:46:11PM -0400, Damond wrote:

Supplementary question arising out of this discussion…..

How many people here have found very high speeds in play to be a REAL problem
in actual games, rather than a theoretical one?

I'm VERY wary of introducing maximum speeds if it can be avoided. What
are folks' real in-game experiences?

Moving very fast has its own difficulties, not least of which is the high risk
of overshooting your target unless you judge things EXACTLY right (which is a
large reason why I've never worried too much about the
"problem" of passing ships not being able to shoot at each other - yes,
it may be a very big abstraction and seem odd, but it does have the effect of
making players keep their speeds down if they want to avoid this happening).

Please discuss……?  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

> On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:45, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unless you are defending an area or region, then it is easier to
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:46:11PM -0400, Damond wrote:

I haven't played Full Thrust (or another space ship game) for a long time. I
have a bunch of ships, and hope I will again. I think that I just play a minis
game occasionally, and my interest is elsewhere at the moment.

When I played, we used the cinematic movement system, because the inspiration
(if not the game setting) was movies. You don't see Imperial Star Destroyers
moving sideways through space, pointed in a different direction than they were
moving. We didn't find it difficult, though
hex-shaped bases really help. You always keep a hex edge parallel to a
table edge.

I don't remember a problem with high speeds. We did get the impression that
games were samey, where we went at each other and then around in circles.
Colonial Battlefleet promised to address that, give better strategy, more fun,
but I found it too limiting. It also put the role of ships into the rules
more. The GZG fleets (which I love) have lots of ships of different sizes, but
I've usually thought of them as different sizes of the same thing, rather than
ships filling different roles, and I'd like to get out of that rut a bit.
Tried a bit of Starmada in different iterations, but those seemed to be about
ship design more than play. Full Thrust seemed to me to have the best balance
of what a game needs and what I want.

andy

[quoted original message omitted]

Exactly. It will be a rare event to have two forces meeting randomly in the
depths of space. Most conflict will occur around tactical (near a station,
mining facility, staging areas) or strategic points (L4s, L5s, Jump Gates,
Worm Hole entryways, etc). To that end you're generally going to see slower
speeds.

If you were to game deep space fights both sides will generally be going at a
very high rate of speed ensuring a single high speed pass. By the time you
wheel around to head in for pass two your target will be too far away to
catch. If you were to happen upon a ship dead in space (motionless) you may or
may not slow down but if you do you're going to start burning hot for a while
to do so. Resulting in no speed.

You want to be Really Careful(tm) about trying to bring Real Life(tm) into
Star Ship gaming. Most assumptions won't hold very long at all i.e. there is
no sneaking in space, there is no perfect heat sinks in space, you will detect
"enemy" vessels giving you many hours or days to respond, energy expenditure
of any sort is measurable allowing you to predict intent, etc.

D.

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unless you are defending an area or region, then it is easier to

How many games? Maybe one or two in Jon and company's FTJava app. On the
tabletop? At ECC with the big tables I've seen speeds in excess of 20 a
few times.  On regular tables  generally in the 12 - 16mu range.  In
cinematic it is easier to maintain speed so average speed is higher than
vector where you make a pass, slow down to zero, and then accel again.

In my experience high speed results in missed firing opportunities.

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Supplementary question arising out of this discussion…..

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you were to game deep space fights both sides will generally be

THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO DEVELOP CINEMATIC ENGINES FOR SPACE COMBAT!!

:-D

> You want to be Really Careful(tm) about trying to bring Real Life(tm)
into
> Star Ship gaming. Most assumptions won't hold very long at all i.e.
there
> is no sneaking in space, there is no perfect heat sinks in space, you

Dammit, Damo, stop infusing RL into my SF*!  :-D

* - fantasy

Mk

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dammit, Damo, stop infusing RL into my SF*! :-D

I used to think that a near future limited tech starship game would be fun
-- then I did some reading and found it it wouldn't be fun at all.  Most
action would occur at the start as your ships are burning hot or at the very
end of a trip where your fuel is so low you couldn't get away if you tried. I
used to think it was a near future "Subs in Space" situation with people
hunched over passive arrays trying to ferret out the location of the baddies.
In reality you'd know the baddies were there hours to days in advance. Space
is a big place and any ship with a course crossing yours is immediately
suspect. It's a weird game where the captain, on a Tuesday, says "Prepare to
repel boarders Friday morning!"

So where does that leave me?

I still like SFB, FT, Silent Death, Jon's little fighter game he came out with
a long time ago, cloaks, etc. I just giggle a bit when folks try to bring Real
Life into starship gaming when generally they're 110% wrong or they try to
apply Real Life to a certain segment of the rules. If you're going to set the
bar high...make sure everything crosses it. That said a starship game that
"followed the rules" would be intensely boring.

D.

For leaving the table, I keep in my mind a concept of 'battle space', a
limited area where command and control makes sense, and
entrance/reentrance requires involved reintegration of IFF and tactical
linkage. Best if 'you can come back, but for (x turns) you are EVERYBODY'S
target.'

Especially if part of a larger battle, and you are assumed, having left this
'battle space', to have entered another furball.

But, from my POV, if there is ONE maneuver, and ONE cycle of fire, however
abstract, I'd not be claiming a period of minutes per turn.

If you are putting 'limits' on speeds, I'd suggest it's more about putting
limits on turns at higher speeds. And, I'm afraid, that's where
hex-based rules have advantages. Painful, ones, I'll admit. (Sorry, I'm
having flashbacks to ancient arguments about 'if I'm going 10K MUs...' proving
FT2 was broken...)

By the way, I'm comfortable with something in the 4xthrust range. Yes, the
cracks show, but most of us don't get crazy about it.

Cinema fighters, along with the WWII Pacific baggage, create most of the
issues with Cinematic fighters, don't you know. I'd think the problematic goal
is one set of rules that can allow both reasonable or heroic as you wish, as
long as everyone is forced to know they're choosing either the blue or the red
capsule. Is Continuum close to that?

Doug

[quoted original message omitted]

I haven't had much trouble with high speeds. Most of the time it's self
correcting. People with big tables and small ships who like high speeds can
still play as they want. As Damond pointed out, there's a limiting factor
built into the game since ranges are fixed. The faster you go, the greater the
chance of out running the weapon ranges.

The only issues I've seen with the movement system have been oddities where
two ships pass each other without shooting, not because they were out of range
but because their weapons were out of arc, even though they spent most of the
turn *in* arc. That's just a factor of the game, though.

There are issues with FT, but I never found the movement system to be one of
them to be honest. Except where fighters are concerned, and that leads to
quite another big ball of wax...

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Supplementary question arising out of this discussion…..

Actually, I've never really had problems with high speeds in game - my
issue with fighters is more conceptual than an actual problem I've had in
play - I don't like that fighters use a completely different movement
system when they're both supposed to be in space. But as was mentioned
before - this comes from the naval model of fighters in the air and
ships in the water. It's why I started using vector fighters. Same thing can
happen with Salvo Missiles - moving fast enough you can race past your
missiles.

In vector most people figure out pretty quickly that they're going to
overshoot their targets pretty fast if they just keep accelerating. I could
see it being a bigger issue in Cinematic actually, moving faster makes it
much harder to predict future positions - in vector its still pretty
clear
where all of the ships are going to end up - the envelope of possible
positions is pretty well defined.

As Damond said, most of your big standing battles are not going to happen in
empty space where fleets are going to be passing at high velocities. Even if
it does happen in your setting, its not really worth playing out because those
battles are going to be pretty boring. I suppose setting up a high velocity
pass on a "stationary" target is a possible risk, but its again boring, and I
think you'd be able to see it coming and be able to put
up a deterrent - maybe this is why so many of my battles seem to happen
with a nice scattering of asteroids? Random asteroids in orbit around your
high value target might limit the temptation to make a high-relative
velocity pass.

I'm also okay with the ships passing each other not being able to shoot
-
in vector its actually pretty close to how a lot of physics simulations
handle things - you introduce a timestep and calculate new positions
from the last timestep. No matter how careful you are with the rules, there
are always going to be little glitches that come from the choice of the size
of the timestep from one turn to the next. Once ships get close enough, its
not going to be a perfect simulation. I'm also okay with not worrying about
3D - it adds some tactical options, but not enough for the complexity it
adds to the movement system.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Exactly. It will be a rare event to have two forces meeting randomly
into
> Star Ship gaming. Most assumptions won't hold very long at all i.e.
there
> is no sneaking in space, there is no perfect heat sinks in space, you

I think the best thing I like about Full Thrust is the customizability. I like
having the option to try and play a more realistic battle with vector motion,
gravity, etc. And others can play a more cinematic version that looks more
like Star Wars. Almost every other game is locked into certain setting
restrictions that essentially makes it less adaptable. I like that Full Thrust
essentially has a set of core rules (beam dice, damage, system diagrams, ship
construction, etc.) but other things can be left up to the type of game that
people want to play.

It also seems to hit the sweet spot between having enough crunch and tactical
options and still being playable in a decent amount of time (provided you
don't try to put into play every spaceship model you own).
I've seen others that are simpler - but they seem kind of bland because
there's not enough to work with to make the battles interesting - it
just comes down to dice rolling. There are others that have a lot more
complexity - but you tend to get lost in the complexity and can only
play a battle with at most 2 ships per side.

Absolutely, as I’ve just pointed out, I’ll steal from anybody. ;->=

But the Holy Grail (mythic, never to be obtained, goal) is a structure that
allows balance in adjustments you try to make. Want a ship that’s all 360
degree turns? How do you describe that possibility in FT terms? Needs some
mother point adjustments.

Again, you hit it on the nose with ‘sweet spot’, but also Holy
Grail, you can hope to find the scalability to play a few ships interestingly,
or table so crowded the ships move in the order space appears in front of
them.

Doug

From: Gzg [mailto:gzg-bounces@firedrake.org] On Behalf Of Randy
Wolfmeyer
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 10:37 AM
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Subject: Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? was: Re: [FT]
Quiet in here, isn't it.

I think the best thing I like about Full Thrust is the customizability. I like
having the option to try and play a more realistic battle with vector motion,
gravity, etc. And others can play a more cinematic version that looks more
like Star Wars. Almost every other game is locked into certain setting
restrictions that essentially makes it less adaptable. I like that Full Thrust
essentially has a set of core rules (beam dice, damage, system diagrams, ship
construction, etc.) but other things can be left up to the type of game that
people want to play.

It also seems to hit the sweet spot between having enough crunch and tactical
options and still being playable in a decent amount of time (provided you
don't try to put into play every spaceship model you own).
I've seen others that are simpler - but they seem kind of bland because
there's not enough to work with to make the battles interesting - it
just comes down to dice rolling. There are others that have a lot more
complexity - but you tend to get lost in the complexity and can only
play a battle with at most 2 ships per side.

In message <F6D1B18B-5B83-49D8-89AA-CFBAA3C66122@gzg.com>
> Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

[snip]

> Right, so my first question to you all: MOVEMENT SYSTEM(S) IN FT?

> What Movement System do you use, or have you used in the past when

> When you reply/discuss, please let me have some background on your

> Obviously the new edition will retain the basic cinematic movement

> OK, over to you all  ;-)

> Jon (GZG)

Hi Jon,

I haven't played recently due to a lack on a convenient venue, but as my FLGS
has recently moved to a larger premises, I'm hoping to start playing again
soon(ish).

When I did play it was mostly cinematic, but with the 'side-slip'
house rule usually in play.

While I quite like to vector rules, as one of my friends has pointed
out, what does the use of the vector rules to the balance of weapons -
as single arc weapons would appear to be more useful under the vector rules?

Which raised the related point; that Spinal Mount Nova Cannons, Wave Guns and
Hyperspace distortion Cannons (from the IJN playtest rules) could be pretty
nasty under the vector rules!

Something to think about if you do include vector rules.

As for fighters, I think I'd prefer it if fighters used the same movement
system as ships (write orders etc.), just allow whole fighter squadrons (of
multiple groups) to use 1 order.

Maybe allow ships to be grouped into squadrons as well, it might speed up
larger battles (a bit).

In the end, everything is about choosing whatever balance you want between
fidelity, playability and convenience. There are no wrong
answers, especially when you're playing sci-fi or fantasy and there
isn't a real world analogue that you need to match performance or result to.
In the end, if you're having fun, that's the important bit.

JGH

> On 22/10/2015 3:54 AM, Roger Bell_West wrote:

Whoops, missed that one.

I've no problem with floating table; it's about two ships further apart than
the size of the battle area.

Doug

[quoted original message omitted]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:

> Whoops, missed that one.

If only two ships, them why does the scale stay fixed?

Scale is one of the big issues I play with and also controls board sizes. If
the intruders entry point and target are on the same table, speeds will tend
to conform to that battle space....

With that I always liked Mayday's free floating hex boards, which you could
move around chunks as needed. Though it helps to have the figures and/or
counters near the center of a bit of board that needs to be repositioned.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Evyn MacDude <evyn.macdude@gmail.com> wrote:

> If only two ships, them why does the scale stay fixed?
​I don't think Doug meant that there were literally *only *two ships on the
table.

Thanks, Allen.

Well, any two ships, whether they’re in a large furball or just a duel.
I’d tend to say any outliers are ‘disengaged.’ Start another
round if you wish, but from the viewpoint of re-engaging if a duel.

If you wish to ‘change the scale’, you can do that with twenty ships.
Parts of the battle may get VERY crowded, but you’re adjusting things,
right?

Likewise, I have played, long ago, with extra tables. One ships runs off the
edge, chased by another. Or, if you want to have ships jump back in,
fine, but you then are meta-gaming as far as I’m concerned. Like me
saying ‘you come back in everybody’s target.’ I played with, also long
ago, rules of the of ‘you come back in after x turns per how fast you could
turn around and you suffer opponents getting free shots’ variety.

Rules should have suggestions, maybe even ‘preferred’ way of handling, but
I like it being yet another place to say ‘it’s YOUR
game.’

By the way, who said it was too quiet?

Doug

From: Gzg [mailto:gzg-bounces@firedrake.org] On Behalf Of Allan Goodall
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 10:50 PM
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Subject: Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? was: Re: [FT]
Quiet in here, isn't it.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Evyn MacDude
> <evyn.macdude@gmail.com<mailto:evyn.macdude@gmail.com>> wrote:

If only two ships, them why does the scale stay fixed?

> On 23 Oct 2015, at 13:48, Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:

> Thanks, Allen.

It was VERY quiet, then I poked it with a stick…..  ;-)

(Totally off-topic, my favourite Chez Geek card - illustrated by John
Kovalic - is the "TV Wildlife Shows" card with the caption "This
crocodile is not sufficiently enraged yet, so I'm going to poke it with this
stick…")

Jon (GZG)

> Doug
[FT] Quiet in here, isn't it.
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Evyn MacDude <evyn.macdude@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If only two ships, them why does the scale stay fixed?

it WAS quiet, I was ready to name the crickets

Michael Brown

mwsaber6@msn.com

From: jon@gzg.com
Subject: Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? was: Re: [FT]
Quiet in here, isn't it.
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:32:10 +0100
To: gzg@firedrake.org

On 23 Oct 2015, at 13:48, Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:Thanks,
Allen. Well, any two ships, whether they’re in a large furball or just a
duel. I’d tend to say any outliers are ‘disengaged.’ Start another round
if you wish, but from the
viewpoint of re-engaging if a duel. If you wish to ‘change the
scale’, you can do that with twenty ships. Parts of the battle may get VERY
crowded, but you’re adjusting things, right? Likewise, I have played, long
ago, with extra tables. One ships runs off the edge, chased by another. Or, if
you want to have ships jump back in, fine, but you
then are meta-gaming as far as I’m concerned. Like me saying ‘you
come back in everybody’s target.’ I played with, also long ago, rules of
the of ‘you come back in after x turns per how fast you could turn around
and you suffer opponents getting free shots’ variety. Rules should have
suggestions, maybe even ‘preferred’ way of handling, but I like it being
yet another place to say ‘it’s YOUR game.’ By the way, who said it was
too quiet?
It was VERY quiet, then I poked it with a stick…..  ;-)
(Totally off-topic, my favourite Chez Geek card - illustrated by John
Kovalic - is the "TV Wildlife Shows" card with the caption "This
crocodile is not sufficiently enraged yet, so I'm going to poke it with this
stick…") Jon (GZG)

 Doug From: Gzg [mailto:gzg-bounces@firedrake.org] On Behalf Of Allan
Goodall
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 10:50 PM

[quoted original message omitted]

> On 28 Oct 2015, at 21:35, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
systems to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?
> Possibly a bit of a necromantic response at this point, but here goes.

All useful stuff, Eric, thanks for the response - and not too late at
all! After the brief flurry of comments when I first posed the question, it's
all gone quiet again - anyone else want to chip in, there are a lot of
you out there we haven't heard from yet…..?