FTFB Turn Arcs

Hi guys! I was wondering if anybody had a lasso style turn arc

> Hi guys! I was wondering if anybody had a lasso style turn arc
I don't know about the above, but can anyone tell me why the turn rates for
the Fleet Book are different from the ones found in the Earthforce Sourcebook
for the Babylon Project. It seems to me that the restrictions placed on
maneuvering in the EFSB are far more realistic, and add a great deal more to
the game than the weak maneuver restrictions in the FB.

> I don't know about the above, but can anyone tell me why the turn

What are the EFSB turn rates? I was just thinking again today that we have to
do something about this "dreadnought spins on a dime" concept currently in
force.

> I don't know about the above, but can anyone tell me why the turn
That's the same problem me and my friends have, and were really puzzled my
since the movement system in the EFSB is so different from the FB.

The difference is that the maneuver thruster capability of a ship is half that
of the main drive capability. In essence, if a ship has a main drive thrust of
6, it would only have a maneuver thrust ability of 3, so it's ability to push
to any direction, or turn in any direction, is limited to 3 points. For
instance, if a thrust 6 ship were travelling in direction
6,
the most it could pivot would be to turn to direction 3 or 9, instead of being
able to turn in any direction it wants to. And if it did the above, it
couldn't push in any direction because it would have used all of its maneuver
thrust points.

This actually makes unmaneuverable ships pay some sort of price. As it stands
now in the FB, there really is little disadvantage to having poorly
maneuveralble ships, because all ships can turn on a dime, which we think is
ridiculous.

Chris Lowrey asked:

[Someone else - sorry, missed who - asked]

> > Hi guys! I was wondering if anybody had a lasso style turn arc

No, but you can use the turning template in FT2 - F arc is 11 to 1, FS
is
1 to 3, AS is 3 to 5 etc. Just remove the FT2 arc markings - shouldn't
be hard if you scan the FT2 template.

> I don't know about the above, but can anyone tell me why the turn

Because the timescales are different. One game turn in FT is "commonly
agreed upon" as ~15-20 minutes, whereas one EFSB turn is maybe 60
seconds.

"Realistically", a change of facing for a starship takes on the order of one
minute to execute. This is a full EFSB turn or at least a very
significant fraction of it, but it is f-5-7% of a Full Thrust turn - so
a
Thrust 15+ ship might be affected by the time lost in turning, but
Thrust
15+ is very rare :-/

Regards,

> Because the timescales are different. One game turn in FT is "commonly
Where did you find these numbers at?

> > I don't know about the above, but can anyone tell me why the turn

Oerjan replied:
> Because the timescales are different. One game turn in FT is "commonly

I still think 450 seconds (7.5 minutes) is the way to go.

> "Realistically", a change of facing for a starship takes on the order

Based on what? I'm not arguing, just asking. It would make more sense to me
that a dreadnought isn't going to be able to flip as fast as a corvette. More
mass, and a longer axis to rotate. If it is below the grain of the gamescale,
that's okay, but I'm curious to see why.

> The difference is that the maneuver thruster capability of a ship is

I think I'd say "pay one thrust for two points' turning" but you could use
your entire thrust rating to turn, if you like.

> The difference is that the maneuver thruster capability of a ship is
That works for me too, but anything that keeps the huge "turrets in space"
thing under control is a good idea. Seriously, what's the disadvantage without
such penalties? None, as far as we can see.

Theron

I've just posted one here in GIF format so you can edit it in any paint
package and print it on acetate

> On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Laserlight wrote:

hmm, yes. to say 'realistic' implies that you have figures for mass, size
and thrust in real-world units for starships. if i recall, there was
only weak consensus last time this was debated.

> It would make more sense to

i'm not so sure about this. as part of my continuing program to rehabilitate
the battleship, i gave this some thought.

executive summary: big ships turn faster than little ships.

you will be pleased to hear that i will spare the algebra this time! my
physics is a bit weak as far as angular motion is concerned, though, so if the
wiser on the list could check this, it'd be nice.

the speed of turning depends on the ratio of turning thrust to the angular
inertia of the ship. turning thrust depends on drive power, which depends on
drive mass, which (for ships with a constant fraction of their mass in the
drive), so turning thrust is proportional to mass. assuming all ships
are similar shapes (eg spheres, cylinders of a given length-to-radius
ratio, scale models of halibut, etc) angular inertia is proportional (i think)
to the radius of the object. radius is proportional to the cube root of the
mass. thus, the speed of turning varies as mass (for thrust)
divided by cube-root-of-mass (for inertia), which gives the two-thirds
power of mass. according to this simple (but, as far as i can see, waterproof)
analysis, larger ships turn faster than small ships.

in short, you have two choices: (a) rethink your assumptions on size and
maneuverability (b) ignore physics in favour of playability. i find the second
option very attractive myself.

> If it is below the grain of the

herein lies the rub; if the ft2 turn is indeed 15 minutes, then any ship is
going to be able to execute a 720 without too much difficulty. maybe we should
give up any limitations on turning? it would make things a little
simpler and more hard-sf.

Tom

> Thomas Anderson wrote:
...Snip...JTL
(a) rethink your assumptions on size and
> maneuverability (b) ignore physics in favour of playability. i find

I tend to agree with the second option. I favor four rates of turning
(rotation) based on the thrust of the ship.

Bye for now,

> On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Laserlight wrote:
[BIG SNIP]
> in short, you have two choices: (a) rethink your assumptions on size

Tom's interesting answer (most snipped above for brevity) has pretty well
summed up why we made the FB different from the EFSB in the turning rules.
Without going into the math (most of which I've forgotten since school
anyway) we figured that given drives/thrusters of a similar power
relative to the mass of the ship (which is what the Thrust rating in FT is,
after
all - Thrust-2 drives on a Mass 100 ship are ten times as big/powerful
as
Thrust-2 drives on a Mass 10 ship) then any ship will be able to rotate
and/or push at  the same rate.

If you prefer to use the EFSB model (which was specifically designed to make
the EA ships very slow and ponderous, to reflect what has (mostly) been seen
on TV, odd CGI effects quirks notwithstanding), then feel free to do so; like
all rules in FT, it is there to be modified if you wish. For the FB, we
decided that it limited the agility of some ships a bit TOO much, but if you
disagree then that is fine. Of course, you could always mix the two to reflect
different levels of drive tech and allow for obsolescent ships....

Jon spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> like all rules in FT, it is there to be modified if you wish.

A voice of sanity amidst a sea of algebra.....

In short, do what you think *feels* right for your setting (PSB as
required for your own conscience/sense of verisimilitude). Maybe this
will stop the insidious creep of this discussion towards multivariate calculus
using triple integrals, statistical properties, every sort of moment under the
sun, and a lot of dubious assumptions.... (points to self as an offender).

Tom.
/************************************************

> If you prefer to use the EFSB model (which was specifically designed to
For
> the FB, we decided that it limited the agility of some ships a bit TOO
Great - I just wanted to know why it was done that way, and now I know.
We prefer to use the EFSB model of movement in our FB games. We just like the
way it makes the ships move, and seems to give us a better reason to have
those fast ships....

Thanks for the answer.

Say fellows, I have the FB on order (through my local hobbystore) and I had a
question...

Suppose you wanted to design a special class of capital ship with higher than
normal turn points. Can you buy extra turn points?

> Donald Hosford wrote:

> Say fellows, I have the FB on order (through my local hobbystore)

The FB design system as written doesn' let you boy maneuver thrust points
separate from the main engines, no (you always get maneuver thrust = 0.5 *
main thrust, just as in FT2).

There's nothing to stop you from using a house rule, of course! Just make sure
that you dn't give a ship using the vector movement system more maneuver
thrust than it has main thrust, since this would indicate that the ship has
more powerful engines to its side and front than to its rear
<g>)

Regards,

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Donald Hosford wrote:

I see your point. It would look strange for the maneuver engines to be more
powerfull than the main thrusters...:) Unless...you were using plasma drives,
then when the enemy attacks you could just fire up the engines, and wipe out
all incoming attacks. 8D