_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l I just
played a short game of Attack Vector: Tactical. At first glance, AV:T seems to
be proof positive that geeks will indulge in all manner of cerebral abuse if
it is labelled as a game. The movement system is vector based,
straightforward, 3D, on a hex map, and actually playable. What really
surprised me was that acceleration chart and movement segmentation is a very
good approximation of newtonian dynamics, as applied to big nuclear rockets.
The vessels accumulate vectors as they accelerate continuously. Accelerating
in a straight line produces the results expected from your physics class:
thrusting at A, for time T moves you a distance of 0.5AT^2 and you end up with
a velocity of AT. Restricting the facings and vertical angles to 30 degree
increments allows a simple chart to resolve where the ship under acceleration
ends up (unfortunately, this is only tangentially related to the player
predicting where he goes). Changing facing is also a time consuming process,
as the ship builds up angular momentum, swings towards the new facing, and
comes to rest. If you can understand what will happen, you can save some time
during a course change by thrusting while pivotting, but this really
complicates predicting where you end up. Having a degree in Mathematics is not
necessary to use the movement system, and I am not even sure that it helps;
however, an introductory level physics course is a definite asset.
Compare this to vector movement from FB1. Ships change facing
instantaneously and the main drive applies thrust as a Dirac-delta
function (infinite thrust applied for a duration of zero, but with a finite
change in velocity). Even cinematic movement has infinite impulse drives. Not
that there is anything inherently wrong with infinite impulse drives (as a
game mechanic). It is much easier to predict where your ships end up, so your
tactics are built on the formations that you want, not the ones that you can
manage.
All that it would take to adapt this into an even more optional movement
system for FT is a set of pivot tables for changing the facing of the ships,
possibly based on a combination of thrust and mass points-- large, low
thrust ships take the longest to come about and small, high thrust ships pivot
fastest. But all ships should be able to swap ends in the space of a turn.
Kra'Vak and Sa'Vasku ships would only need to pivot to bring weapons into arc,
but they would need to record the direction of their thrust axis.
The scenario I played was simply to explore moving the ships. It was a race
> On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 07:14:28PM +0000, Richard Bell wrote:
> Compare this to vector movement from FB1.
It's not hard to produce a "real vector" system for FT. My assumptions were:
(1) Ignore facing change time. Turns are probably around 5-15 minutes
long anyway. It's too much effort.
(2) Ignore the third dimension. It looks pretty but it doesn't add all that
much to the game.
What's left is the continuous-thrust element. Not a problem. You do need
two markers per ship to work out its movement, but you only need to leave one
of them on the table between movement phases.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'll disagree on it
adding much to the game. I like SITS/AV:T vector
movement better than FT as long as I'm only running a ship or two. For fleets
FT wins hands down.
Roger
> On 3/3/07, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRichard Bell wrote:
> I just played a short game of Attack Vector: Tactical. At first
Dunno about AV:T, but my son describes the Saganami Island game, which is
based on it, as something very like that...
> The movement system is vector based, straightforward, 3D, on a hex
small, high thrust ships pivot fastest. But all ships should be able to swap
ends in the space of a turn. <
Is that really needed in FT, given the assumed timescale -- 10-15
minutes per game-turn, isn't it? While I won't argue that the AV:T
linear movement system wouldn't be an interesting addition to FT, do we need
to worry about it in terms of pivoting (as distinct from turning as
a function of thrusting to change the velocity vector), particularly since
ships only fire once per turn and that's after movement? Unless
we're going to go to an impulse-based system with multiple
move-and-shoot opportunities during a game-turn, does it make sense to
concern ourselves overly with ship rotation? With the FT sequence of play as
it is, does it make sense to consider pivoting in any other
context than i) turn to thrust; ii) turn to shoot -- in that order?
I know it's all optional, but perhaps it's getting too pedantic to worry
about angular momentum in FT with the game as it is now -- and that is
unlikely to alter /that/ much in 3rd edition.
Still, from what you say, AV:T looks to be worth checking out.
Phil
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAn impulse system
is what AV:T and SITS do. It's the only thing that makes the system work as
simply as it does.
FWIW the game is simpler than SFB. The hard part is not learning the rules or
the mechanics, the hard part is learning how to not overcontrol.
Roger
> On 3/3/07, Phillip Atcliffe <atcliffe@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Roger Burton West wrote:
Well, as it turns out that is not quite enough for an accurate simulation. The
game AV:T actually had
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 3/3/07, Roger
> Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
Once you discard the third dimension (which I would do for playing Full
Thrust), it gets even easier to use, and the one element it does add is a
straightforward method to implement turning points (each vessel in the line
begins its turn at the same point in space, so they remain in a line before,
during, and after the maneuvereuver). Maneuvering a line-ahead
formation is not a situation that FT's movement mechanic allows for, as
written.
Changing the formation of a group from line-ahead to line-abreast, doing
the
reverse, or changing the direction of a line-abreast formation while
maintaining a line-abreast formation is equally difficult in either
system of vector movement, in that anything you have not tinkered with to the
point that you have a card that shows the before formation and vector, the
after formation and vector, and all the orders for each element to go from one
to the other, will cause your opponent to grumble about the length of time it
requires for you to write your orders. At least the ability of AV:T's movement
system to allow burns to happen at many points during the turn will make these
canned maneuvers easier to plan.
FT only wins hands down for fleet engagements if your fleets are large numbers
of single ships, instead of a small number of formations [For what it is
worth, I should mention that I have only ever managed to play FT
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 08:45:05PM -0500, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> Well, as it turns out that is not quite enough for
Yes, I do know this and I've read the PDF. I took it into account when
designing the "Painfully Accurate Vector" rules.
The short version is "work out your delta-V for this turn as normal,
then apply only half of it to your current turn's movement".
R
> [snip]
Formation movement in Cinematic FT is quite simple to implement, as long as
all players involved agree to accept the ramifications of it; basically, just
write move orders for the one ship in the formation, and then move the others
to maintain the formation pattern. The problems with this are, of course, that
whichever ship you choose to plot for, some of the others will be exceeding
the limits of the
normal movement system - say you have a line-abreast formation and
you plot on the middle ship, then if the formation turns, the "outer" ones are
getting a free velocity boost, while the "inner" ones are possibly exceeding
normal turning limits. However, this really need
not be a problem if everyone agrees and is happy with it - the FT
rules are flexible enough that if it "feels" right, then use it. We wouldn't
recommend it for any kind of competition play, because obviously it's open to
misuse by munchkins, but if you're playing a "friendly" game with reasonable
people, then why not?
In theory, there is no reason why you shouldn't also do the same in FT Vector,
though the odd artifacts of bending the rules may be a little more obvious
here; in the end it's up to you and your opponents just how much flexibility
you want to allow in your games.
Jon (GZG)
> _______________________________________________
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> whole formation.
> plot on the middle ship, then if the formation turns, the "outer" ones
> are getting a free velocity boost, while the "inner" ones are possibly
> exceeding normal turning limits. However, this really need not be a
I tend to use Box or Diamond formations, rarely line.
Just have their initial positions defined well - say a 2" spacing
left-right and up-down, then move one ship, and then move the rest to
conform. So the box's orientation becomes a diamond after a 1 or 2 pt turn, it
remains a box after a 3 pt turn.
Sometimes I have ships in line - though often at 30 or 60 degrees
echelon rather than abreast or astern. This way, if my plans come to fruition.
after a turn at the right time they'll be in line abreast at the optimal
spacing.
You get all the benefits of formation orders, with none of the rules bending.
It just means the formations look a little untidy at times.
Zoe
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lConcur,
SITS is great for 1-3 ships per player in some sort of skirmish. Try to
fly fleets with it and the hair torn out coats the floor.
Bob Makowsky
----- Original Message ----
From: Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 4:29:51 PM
Subject: Re: [GZG] FT vector movement systems
I'll disagree on it adding much to the game. I like SITS/AV:T vector
movement better than FT as long as I'm only running a ship or two. For fleets
FT wins hands down.
Roger
> On 3/3/07, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> Compare this to vector movement from FB1.
It's not hard to produce a "real vector" system for FT. My assumptions were:
(1) Ignore facing change time. Turns are probably around 5-15 minutes
long anyway. It's too much effort.
(2) Ignore the third dimension. It looks pretty but it doesn't add all that
much to the game.
What's left is the continuous-thrust element. Not a problem. You do need
two markers per ship to work out its movement, but you only need to leave one
of them on the table between movement phases.
Roger
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOf course there's
always the squadron rules. They don't look bad.
Roger
> On 3/5/07, Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIn spades! A wall
of battle seldom extends outside of one hex. With three hundred kilometer
wedges and three hundred kilometer vertical and horizontal spacing, you are
limited to walls of battle containing less than about thirty thousand ships
(assuming each hex is one hundred thousand kilometers). Although you may be
exceeding the flag limits, you only need to write one set of orders for the
entire wall and keep track of one vector. As your wall takes damage, you will
either have to abandone cripples (which will solve the problem of writing
orders for them by getting them promptly destroyed), or limit the orders to
what they can comply with.
> On 3/6/07, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
Try to
> > fly fleets with it and the hair torn out coats the floor.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHave not seen them
yet. Going to have to get a look. Busy Busy with new job now though.
Bob
----- Original Message ----
From: Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2007 7:59:05 PM
Subject: Re: [GZG] FT vector movement systems
Of course there's always the squadron rules. They don't look bad.
Roger
On 3/5/07, Robert Makowsky <
> rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
Concur,
SITS is great for 1-3 ships per player in some sort of skirmish. Try to
fly fleets with it and the hair torn out coats the floor.
Bob Makowsky
----- Original Message ----
From: Roger Books <
roger.books@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 4:29:51 PM
Subject: Re: [GZG] FT vector movement systems
I'll disagree on it adding much to the game. I like SITS/AV:T vector
movement better than FT as long as I'm only running a ship or two. For fleets
FT wins hands down.
Roger
On 3/3/07, Roger Burton West <
> roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> Compare this to vector movement from FB1.
It's not hard to produce a "real vector" system for FT. My assumptions were:
(1) Ignore facing change time. Turns are probably around 5-15 minutes
long anyway. It's too much effort.
(2) Ignore the third dimension. It looks pretty but it doesn't add all that
much to the game.
What's left is the continuous-thrust element. Not a problem. You do need
two markers per ship to work out its movement, but you only need to leave one
of them on the table between movement phases.
Roger