Hi to all out in list-land......
I'd like to canvass some opinions on the subject of ROTATION IN VECTOR
MOVEMENT for FT; this has been discussed a bit recently with a number of
options put forward, so I want to get some more feedback
from as wide a base of players as possible - those of you who are on
any of the other FT/GZG forums and lists please feel free to
cross-post this question to those sites, as the more responses I get
the better. If you want your opinions open for discussion by the rest
of the list members, feel free to post replies to the gzg-l list, or
if you prefer (or are answering from another list or forum, which I don't
read) send them direct to me at <jon@gzg.com>.
There are three possible option that I'd like you opinions on: (I know there
are other possible options, such as separating maneuver drives from main
thrust etc, but for the moment I just want to concentrate on the three below).
1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
thrust point will rotate any ship to any heading in vector movement.
a) I haven't played this but like it in theory. b) I haven't played this but
dislike it in theory.
c) I've actually played this (with XXXX fleet(s) - please specify) and
like it.
d) I've actually played this (with XXXX fleet(s) - please specify)
and dislike it. e) I have no opinion on this option either way.
Feel free to add comments as to WHY you like/dislike.....
2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant), where 1
thrust point only allows rotation by 1 course point (30 degrees).
a) I haven't played this but like it in theory. b) I haven't played this but
dislike it in theory.
c) I've actually played this (with XXXX fleet(s) - please specify) and
like it.
d) I've actually played this (with XXXX fleet(s) - please specify)
and dislike it. e) I have no opinion on this option either way.
Feel free to add comments as to WHY you like/dislike.....
3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60 degrees).
a) I haven't played this but like it in theory. b) I haven't played this but
dislike it in theory.
c) I've actually played this (with XXXX fleet(s) - please specify) and
like it.
d) I've actually played this (with XXXX fleet(s) - please specify)
and dislike it. e) I have no opinion on this option either way.
Feel free to add comments as to WHY you like/dislike.....
...................
Thanks in advance!
> On 1/4/06, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
(mass snip))
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
C - we've run many of the designs in the Fleet Books and various
homebrew designs (some frankly cheesy, most not) and the current system just
seems to work.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant),
B - for both of these. Low-thrust ships are already handicapped
enough, why penalize them further? Either of these systems will make anything
under T4 basically unplayable.
I even dislike the FB2 change of having all thrust from one pool,
really. FT/FB1 had the best Vector system, with full thrust from your
main drives & 50% of that for maneuvering.
FB1-->FB2 made ships less maneuverable, please don't continue this
trend in future evolutions of FT!
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
C. The system is fine. I generally play cinematic movement.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant), where
> 1 thrust point only allows rotation by 1 course point (30 degrees).
D. This rule variant and the implementation in EFSB has prompted me to name
this system "Slugs in Space"
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
A. This sounds like a viable improvement as a house rule for EFSB.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/3/06, Ground
Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:1) The system as it
currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
thrust point will rotate any ship to any heading in vector movement.
d) I've actually played this (with XXXX fleet(s) - please specify)
Kravak, NAC and Imperial Star Wars and dislike it.
This makes the Kravak much too powerful for their points. They're almost twice
as effective as they'd be with cinematic movement. They've consistently beaten
NAC and my homebrewed SW converted fleets with 150% their value despite player
rotation.
2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant), where 1
thrust point only allows rotation by 1 course point (30 degrees).
c) I've actually played this (with earthforce, mimbari, centauri and shadows)
and like it.
This works out pretty well in the few moderate battles we've had.
3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60 degrees).
a) I haven't played this but like it in theory.
More manuverability is good, because I like to play huge slow ships like my
> On Jan 4, 2006, at 4:38 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
ESU, Kra'vak, and homebrew fleets. It just makes sense given the total lack of
a concrete turn time length.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant),
Disliked the show but liked the events at ECC that I've played. From what I've
seen of the show and read in the EFSB it seems to work and make sense.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
Goes against #1 above. In Pure FT there is no time frame for the
turn so it wouldn't make sense to me to introduce such a thing (round-
a-boutly) via rotation limits.
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
> d) I've actually played this (with XXXX fleet(s) - please specify)
I have played this with KV, NSL, IF, NI, ORC, UN, FSE, NAC, ESU, and others.
It has problems: a) unless you're in close range, it's easy to put your target
in F
arc--so if you want to win in vector, you might as well throw out most
of the FB designs. This means that you have some barriers to just
putting some lead on the table and playing--you have to design your
own ships (which I like, but not everyone does), and make your own SSDs (which
is a pain). b) The "homebrew fleets" thing also means that we're no longer
sharing the same degree of community experience, which I think is important to
keeping people active. If I say that I took three Jerez against two Maria von
B, any FT player will know what I'm talking about. If I go to a con and find
I'm facing KV, I have a pretty good idea what to do, without a long
explanation. c) it makes some cheesy maneuvers possible. Let's say you have a
MD4 ship pursuing a MD6 ship in direction 12. Your opponent can start out
facing you, Rotate to 12, Thrust by 4, then Rotate to 6. He spends 5/6
of his turn facing away from you, but still gets the benefit of shooting at
you with his F arc.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant),
> b) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
and like it.
With ORC, UN, IF, NSL. Not as much playing time as I'd like, but it seems to
me to be a better balance of maneuverability..
--------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> c) it makes some cheesy maneuvers possible. Let's say you have a MD4
So what's the solution to this "cheese?" Limiting a ship to a single arc
change per turn? That's pretty bogus.
The *real* issue is that weapons fire is not integrated with movement.
Everyone zips around the table and then says...now who can I shoot? I'd like
to see a fluid game turn that integrates fire and movement. But what do I know
I only play FT about once or twice a year anyhow.
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
> b) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory.
Makes behemoths too manouverable.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant), where
> b) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory.
Makes behemoths too cumbersome.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
> b) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory.
Makes KV's advantage too small, but otherwise OK
Suggestion 1: 2) for normal drives, 1) for advanced (KV) drives, no limit on
amount of thrust devoted to turning. Suggestion 2: 3) for normal drives, 1)
for advanced drives, limit 50% on turning
My $0.02:
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
C & D: I've only played vector with human fleets, so can't comment on the
aliens. Good & bad. I really like the overall feel of the system, and find it
perfectly playable as is. (The FB2 changes were an
improvement IMO.) What I dislike is the turn-burn-turn maneuver which
allows you to always wind up facing the direction you want; it makes
targetting too predictable. I normally use a houserule of only one rotation
per turn, which seems to fix this.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant),
Like EFSB overall, especially how it captured the feel of the show. But if
we're talking about exporting this rule to FT in general, I think it
makes low-THR ships too hard to steer. A THR-2 ship would take 3 turns
just to reverse it's facing, never mind altering it's course. What's the fun
of space combat if you can't maneuver?
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
Seems like an improvement over the EFSB rule, but I think I would still prefer
the current system (with the addition of the house rule mentioned above).
One other vector "fix" I've thought about but haven't gotten around to
playtesting is doubling ships' THR rating for vector movement. (Or halving the
cost of movement; same basic idea.) It seems like that would make ships more
maneuverable while still maintaining the feel of the vector system. It might
also make Options 2 & 3 easier to swallow. But again, I haven't actually
playtested it yet.
FWIW
Scott "Yes I'm Still Here I Just Don't Post Much" Field
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/4/06,
> damosan@comcast.net <damosan@comcast.net> wrote:
THe only real way to really integrate the two (movement/firing) is to
start down the path of "impulse charts" ala SFB.
Think we've covered that before. ;-)
Mk
Hi All,
I haven't played an FT game with vector movement, so take this for what it's
worth...
A buddy of mine has me playing (periodically) a wierd merge of Attack
Vector (super-detailed, not meant for humans system) and Starmada (easy
to play, like FT, but different mechanics) to do Viper vs Cylon Raider
dogfights. Using a modified version of the AV vector movement system we
give normal thruster to increase/decrease speed, and each fighter has
vector thrusters to exectute changes of facing. 1 vector thruster allows 1
change of facing (30 degrees) during one turn. If you have 6 vector thrusters,
you can (obviously) execute more changes of direction.
The system works very well. If you applied the same kind of hting to FT
(though you'd likely have to add some boxes for the vector thrusters), you
could easily differentiate between the nimble frigates and destroyers and
the not-so-nimble dreadnaughts and such.
<shrug>
J
John K. Lerchey Assistant Director for Incident Response Information Security
Office Carnegie Mellon University
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Zoe and Carmel Brain wrote:
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
Damo said:
> I'd like to see a fluid game turn that integrates fire and
<wry> So would we all. The trick is figuring out how to do it, without ending
up with SFB.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/4/06,
> wscottfield@comcast.net <wscottfield@comcast.net> wrote:
What I dislike is the turn-burn-turn maneuver which allows you to always
> wind up facing the direction you want; it makes targetting too
Now, doesn't this contradict your earlier statement? ;-)
Mk
How about if you rotate around like that then the difficulty of tracking the
target while spinning your sensor arrays and turrets around like that has the
effect of making your fire less effective in the same way that shields do?
Weapons that don't use beam die could have the the numer rolled for hit or
damage shifted one number to the defender's benefit..
-- Tim
> On Wednesday 04 January 2006 10:34 am, Indy wrote:
apologies to the list for not trimming, and for lengthening the digest by
feeling compelled to apologize!
(Can't win, can I?) *contrite grin*
Truthfully, the amount of thrust required to spin the spacecraft around the
center of gravity would be negligable with real physics. Personally, I
wouldn't require ANY thrust points to do so.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI prefer the
FleetBook vector system to cinematic for the most part (for humans and
aliens), and like Indy, have no trouble with the
Rotate-Move-Rotate. I like the feel of the turn sequence and movement
(though I agree that the move/fire dichotomy is annoying at times -
anybody thought of doing something like isolating all fighter and missile
action, plus PDS fire I suppose, prior to ship movement and fire?*). The
biggest thing that I've noticed with other players new to the game is that
breaking them of the mindset that "all space games must act like SFB or BF:G
(or
modern day naval/air engagements)" - once they get that out of their
head then they seem to do fine.
* Proposed Revised Sequence:
1- Write Orders
2- Roll Initiative
3- Move Fighters
4- Launch Missiles
5- Allocate Fighter and Missile Attacks
6- Point Defense Fire
7- Missile and Fighter Attacks
8- Move Ships
9- Ships Fire
10- Turn Ends
While dramatic, the idea just occurred me as I was pondering Impulse Charts v.
the FT that I like.
I have never tried the EFSB version.
> John K Lerchey wrote:
> dogfights. Using a modified version of the AV vector movement system
> vector thrusters, you can (obviously) execute more changes of
Interesting! Are you using Attack Vector's 3D movement with
> Truthfully, the amount of thrust required to spin the
I am not a physicist, but....doesn't that depend on the size of the ship and
the time scale? If you use 1 turn = 1 hr, yes, I can see that; but if it's 1
turn = 30 seconds....
Yes, that's exactly what we're doing. We have paper boxes with very nice
images of vipers and raiders on them. We use the AVID 3D movement and fire arc
system, and have the ships stats set up using Starmada for damage and firing.
It's a fun game, and tends to go pretty quickly. I've flown up to 3 vipers at
at time, and Tom (usually my Don and I are the Colonials and Tom is the
Cylons) has flown up to 9 Raiders. We tend to finish in under 2 hours with a
clear victory. Granted, the ships only have 2 hull
points, but hey, they're fighters - they're fragile. :)
J
John K. Lerchey Assistant Director for Incident Response Information Security
Office Carnegie Mellon University
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> Interesting! Are you using Attack Vector's 3D movement with
The thrust to get it moving is not that much, but then you need to counter
that thrust to keep the new heading.
Gets back to "How long is a turn?" and "How big is an MU?".
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAnd how long do the
weapons have to be on-target to score significant
damage?
Roger
> On 1/4/06, Michael Brown <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:17:38 -0000, Flak Magnet (Tim)
> <flakmagnet@comcast.net> wrote:
> How about if you rotate around like that then the difficulty of
> that shields do?
Or, how about (off the top of my head, may be horribly unbalanced)... * fire
from ships that rotate after a main drive burn is resolved after
fire from ships that don't.
PSB if you position yourself to fire without needing a post-burn rotate
then you can get a firing solution quicker.
Would that make people think twice before rotate-fire-rotate?
> The *real* issue is that weapons fire is not integrated with
Nuh-uh! Not if we develop Passing Fire rules. :-)
One of the real problems with vector movement is that anything other than "1
thrust (or less) for any rotation" is the most realistic (as far as it goes)
for a space game. Limiting 1 thrust per facing or two
facings is pure game engineering only to balance things - and each
solution is still not far less than 100% friendly to cinematic ship design.
Vector games are intrinsically different than cinematic games, and thus vector
ships *should* be intrinsically different than cinematic. I don't like to use
most FB ships in vector games (Except
for the NAC furious - which I hate in Cinematic), but would be pretty
happy with the KV.
1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
thrust point will rotate any ship to any heading in vector movement.
d) I've actually played this (with NAC, SV, NSL, FSE, ESU fleet(s)) and
dislike it. I find it really allows the low thrust fleets almost all
the maneouvrability of the high-thrust fleets.
2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant), where 1
thrust point only allows rotation by 1 course point (30 degrees).
d) I've actually played this (with NAC, FSE, Centauri, Narn, Earth Force
fleet(s)) and both like and dislike it. It can be hard to drive in vector, and
being unable to turn more than a couple of facings makes maneouvre very
important. I actually believe it makes planning your
maneouvre several turns in advance the pre-eminent feature of the game.
This makes the game a real planning game (with few options open to you) and
takes it far from beer and pretzels.
3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60 degrees).
a) I haven't played this but like it in theory.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com>
> THe only real way to really integrate the two (movement/firing) is to
I was thinking along the lines of having FT play along like SG, DS, or
FMA. Each player alternates moving/firing one ship (or one group) at a
time. The ship/squadron performs parts of it's move, fires, and then
finishes the move.
What I don't want here is SFB.... But what I'm talking about would provide for
a more dynamic gaming experience. It would be open to all sorts of gamey
things I'm sure but that's up to the players to resolve to a certain point.
--
Damo
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_24090_1136396303_1
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_39639_21318483.1136388883888"
------=_Part_39639_21318483.1136388883888
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
> On 1/4/06, damosan@comcast.net <damosan@comcast.net> wrote:
THe only real way to really integrate the two (movement/firing) is to
start down the path of "impulse charts" ala SFB.
Think we've covered that before. ;-)
Mk
------=_Part_39639_21318483.1136388883888
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
<br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/4/06, <b
class=3D"gmail_sende=
rname"><a
href=3D"mailto:damosan@comcast.net">damosan@comcast.net</a></b> &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:damosan@comcast.net">damosan@comcast.net</a>>
wrote=
:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid
rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;">--------------- O=
riginal message ----------------------<br>From: "Laserlight"
<
<a
href=3D"mailto:laserlight@quixnet.net">laserlight@quixnet.net</a>><br
=
> <br>> c) it makes some cheesy maneuvers possible. Let's
THe only real way to really integrate the two (movement/firing) is to
start= down the path of "impulse charts" ala SFB.<br>
<br>
Think we've covered that before. ;-)<br>
<br>
Mk <br>
</div><br></div>
------=_Part_39639_21318483.1136388883888--
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_24090_1136396303_1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/4/06,
> laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Sure thing.
If you use 1 turn = 1 hr,
> yes, I can see that; but if it's 1 turn = 30 seconds....
But then you have to decide if it is even reasonable to turn any ol' ship 180
degrees in 30 seconds. At which point you are also setting limits on what you
accept and do not accept, reasonable or realistic they may or may not be.
There comes a point when certain things just have to be abstracted out a bit
in order to reduce other artificialities.
Mk
> On Wednesday 04 January 2006 17:38, damosan@comcast.net wrote:
Seconded. Actually, I really like the system in Wargods of Aegyptus
(fantasy wargame), where each player takes a turn to activate a units -
any unit, not just their own. Initiative can be modified by command
quality and technology (jamming/sensors etc). If you win initiative
by a lot, then you activate more than one unit before the opponent.
You could force the enemy to move a unit first, thereby preventing them from
responding to your actions, but maybe giving them the
opportunity to damage/kill one of your ships.
It removes the most complicated part of FT - writing movement orders.
(though WoE has you declare vague orders for each unit before any activations
are done).
Not sure how that would affect things like salvo missiles (fire on activation,
explode at end of turn...? easy to avoid if they fire early, easy to place
them on target if they fire last).
> I was thinking along the lines of having FT play along like SG, DS, or
Now that would be a different game altogether. Even having plotted movement,
moving first would likely be a disadvantage. The only good
tradeoff would be letting/forcing a side outnumbered 2 to 1 to activate
more ships.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "McCarthy, Tom" <Tom.McCarthy@xwave.com>
> Now that would be a different game altogether. Even having plotted
So do you think that it would be a good thing or bad thing overall?
Anyone want to do a quick (after hours) game at ECC to see how it plays?
On the whole, I think it's bad. But if I'm not too fried, then maybe we can
try it out then.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l1. D. Human and
advanced drives.
Removes advantages of advanced drives. It works fine for human versus human.
2. D. It killed low thrust ships making them bigger targets than normal. As an
FSE player I should like it but it shifts things to far into my camp.
3. A.
Here are other suggestions:
1. Increase advanced drives 50% in vector.
2. <Radical> Normal drives move ships to halfway point before advanced write
orders.
Roger
> On 1/4/06, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
> like it.
I've played it as written with FB2 (NAC, NI, and FSE) and I like the system
and am not eager to change it. I've not experienced anything I would consider
a problem. Some designs work better than others in certain situations, but I
had considered that part of the game and not a
problem in the rules that needed fixing.
As I wrote last week (and helped open this can of worms) the way I had
visualized the system means rotating a ship on its axis a lot easier than
changing its course. Others pointed out they visualized the system
differently, and since no time or distance scale is specified their ideas,
which I hadn't considered, are just as valid. But I'm still using
a vision where rotation should be fairly easy so I'm ok with that.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant), where
> 1 thrust point only allows rotation by 1 course point (30 degrees).
I haven't played this, but it sounds horribly ponderous. "Slugs in Space" as
somebody said.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
Kind of the same comments as for #2 but not as much.
An idea had occurred to me which I have not seen mentioned yet. I'm not
convinced I think it is a good idea yet, so take it for what its worth. One of
the things mentioned in the rotation discussion was the effect of
moment of inertia and big ships zipping about like fighters. But I'm used to
playing with mostly small ships and so I like them able to move quickly. How
to make the big ships move like big ships and yet have the small ships able to
outmaneuver them? Maybe have different rotation rates for different sized
ships. As an example: taking the classes from 2nd edition, Capital ships turn
30 degrees per point, Cruisers turn 60 degrees, and Escorts turn as much as
they want. Adjust these values as is appropriate, I haven't tried them. Maybe
it could be based on total mass or something, since the FBs made the classes
somewhat obsolete, but the basic idea is there. I gather another perceived
problem has long been that large ships have an advantage over smaller ships.
This proposal would help address this problem too, since smaller ships could
now outmaneuver the big ones. Now I don't know if I really want to add extra
rules to the system. As I
said I am pretty happy with it as it is. But this isn't too much complication
and address some perceived problems.
> Jon T. wrote:
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
d) I've actually played this and dislike it.
Played it with or against all of the Fleet Book and beta-test fleets,
plus
a wide variety of home-grown designs. Dislike it because of the way it
makes MD4 ships with single-arc long-range beams the ultimate design
style
- forget about the Kra'Vak; their expensive engines don't give them any
real advantage over cheap MD4 (standard) engines, and their K-guns are
outranged by single-arc B3s and B4s. Forget about the FB1 human designs,
too - they waste *way* too much of their weapons Mass on wide fire arcs
which have virtually no use under the FB1/FB2 Vector movement rules.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant), where
d) I've actually played this and dislike it.
Same fleets as above (including in some Cinematic/Vector crossover
battles). Dislike it both because it doesn't really make sense PSB-wise
if a game turn is longer than a minute or so at most, and because it makes
even MD4 and MD6 ships extremely unmanoeuvrable.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
c) & d) I've actually played this and both dislike and like it.
Played it with various homegrown ships, beta-test UNSC, ORC, Kra'Vak and
Phalons; played it against the human FB1 fleets and homegrowns. PSB-wise
I still dislike the way it doesn't really make sense unless the game turn is
quite short, but game-wise I very much like the way it makes having
different main drive ratings actually mean something while still allowing
ships to manoeuvre somewhat.
HOWEVER, game-wise I'm even more fond of the variant of 3) where 1
thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points and a *Main Drive* burn
accellerates the ship *2* mu straight ahead instead of just 1 mu. This
variant retains the fire-arc/drive rating balance of the "plain 3)", but
it also makes it easier for ships to change course rather than just change
facing.
> 4) Modified FB1/FB2 standard - 1 thrust point rotates to any heading,
b) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory.
This has very nearly the same effect as using MD2 drives already has in
FB1/FB2 Vector: with MD2 you only have 1 thrust point to spend on
manoeuvres, so can't make more than 1 rotation per turn. When flying ships
like this most players I've played against choose to maximize their
opportunities to shoot - which means that they'll use their single
rotation per turn to keep the enemy in arc, essentially forfeiting their
ability to manoeuvre except for Main Drive burns in the direction they happen
to face either before or after the rotation.
Basically, with this concept the differences between different MD ratings
become even smaller than they are in FB1/FB2 - MD2 ships are still just
as able to keep the enemy in arc as MD6A ones are, but now the MD6 ship
doesn't even have any noticable advantage in course changing ability.
***
A comment to another reply:
David Rodemaker wrote (in a heavily formatted and thus rather big post):
> (though I agree that the move/fire dichotomy is annoying at times Â
But that doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the move/fire issues Indy
brought up - with your revised turn sequence ships are still just as
able to fly right through each others' fire arcs yet end the move being unable
to shoot at each other, and they can still spend almost all the turn facing
away from their targets but are still able to shoot at full effect as long as
they end the move facing the right direction.
As far as I can see the only real effect of your revised turn sequence seems
to be that SM salvoes and Plasma Bolts will always land in exactly
the right position to hit their intended targets, leaving no chance at all
to outmanoeuvre them... :-(
Regards,
*shudder*
Could someone explain this to me? Is another way to explain this is to cut
range bands in half?
The_Beast
Ok, it's now OA, wrote on 01/04/2006 01:20:42 PM:
> HOWEVER, game-wise I'm even more fond of the variant of 3)
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
"HOWEVER, game-wise I'm even more fond of the variant of 3) where 1
thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points and a *Main Drive* burn
accellerates the ship *2* mu straight ahead instead of just 1 mu. This
variant retains the fire-arc/drive rating balance of the "plain 3)", but
it also makes it easier for ships to change course rather than just change
facing."
I *like* that...
I like that enough I'm going to try it next time I play!
"David Rodemaker wrote (in a heavily formatted and thus rather big
post):"
Sorry about that, I'm not quite sure why my email went out in HTML...
> (though I agree that the move/fire dichotomy is annoying at times -
"But that doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the move/fire issues
Indy
brought up - with your revised turn sequence ships are still just as
able to fly right through each others' fire arcs yet end the move being unable
to shoot at each other, and they can still spend almost all the turn facing
away from their targets but are still able to shoot at full effect as long as
they end the move facing the right direction.
As far as I can see the only real effect of your revised turn sequence seems
to be that SM salvoes and Plasma Bolts will always land in exactly
the right position to hit their intended targets, leaving no chance at all
to outmanoeuvre them... :-("
Your points, as always, are excellent - and it was a very
off-the-top-of-my
head suggestion.
Has anyone just tried allowing ships to fire whenever they like? Marking
ships that have fired isn't that onerous even in a large fleet - or how
about some sort of "overwatch" ability?
Ok, better question - has anyone tried it and actually have any stats or
metrics?
> > HOWEVER, game-wise I'm even more fond of the variant of
This is the variant I'm planning to try in our next game...scheduled for late
November 05, I'm afraid.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/4/06,
> laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Hope you got your DeLorean charged.
Mk
> On 4-Jan-06, at 11:20 AM, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> BUT only ONE rotation maneuver allowed per turn... in other words you
> can rotate for maneuver purposes and then thrust, OR thrust and then
Except that you are adding a magnitude 5 vector instead of a magnitude 1
vector to your course vector. IMO, this is a noticeable advantage. It also
gives advanced drives an advantage because they don't have to "waste" their
rotation to point their main drives in order to change course. For human
ships, it makes
multi-arc
weapons useful as it allows you to shoot at the enemy when your primary
objective is manoeuvre.
OTOH, I do agree that MD2 drives are basically useless in vector, although I
would extend that to all of the proposals other than 3), where they are only
"mostly" useless.
Cheers,
> Indy wrote:
> What I dislike is the turn-burn-turn maneuver which allows you to
Oh, you want consistency too? ;->
To me maneuver means not only being able to move around the battlefield, but
also means doing so in a way that has an effect on combat, thus forcing the
players to make tactical choices.
The current vector system (which I like in theory) in some ways has the worst
of both worlds: ships are not very maneuverable (compared to weapon ranges and
arcs) but its still extremely easy to keep your opponent in your front arc.
Which may be quite realistic, depending on the PSB youre using, but makes for
uninteresting slugfests in my experience.
> Oerjan wrote:
> HOWEVER, game-wise I'm even more fond of the variant of 3) where 1
> accellerates the ship *2* mu straight ahead instead of just 1 mu. This
> variant retains the fire-arc/drive rating balance of the "plain 3)",
I like this idea too, but wouldnt it be easier to just double the amount of
Thrust points ships have in vector? Either way, seems like it could go a long
way towards solving both problems I mentioned above; ships are more
maneuverable, but facing isnt free so they still have to choose between Do I
maneuver for position or for firing angle this turn?
Scott
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
IMNHO - Ever played the old atari original asteroids? :) Logic dictates
to me you should have two available points of thrust left to use it -
one to start the rotation and one to stop it at the desired location.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Hmmmm. Reading all of this only sort of reinforces my original impressions
that any form of vector movement is too complicated. My own personal opinion
is that cinematic is best and vector limits the number of ships in play
because you'll bog down somewhere. I'm all for giving little ships advantages
etc. but I don't personally think vector is the way to go. Not for me anyway.
Next thing you know we'll be tilting ships on little resin stands trying to
simulate 3D movement (or gluing our
ships into bits of coke bottles - anyone else remember that old John
Treadaway article for ST in wargames illustrated? Or was it the other
magazine?). Hey, it's a broad church. I'm all for elegant simplicity which is
what got me hooked in the first place.
> david garnham wrote:
Yes. I still have a photocopy of that. Nowadays one could just go to your
local craft shop and purchase plastic spheres that separate into halves, used
to make christmas tree ornaments.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> david garnham wrote:
Yes. I still have a photocopy of that. Nowadays one could just go to your
local craft shop and purchase plastic spheres that separate into halves, used
to make christmas tree ornaments.
Those were the days! I fondly remember that article and thinking how
good it was, but strangely I never actually did it ;-)
Garnhamghast is - off to bed.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHmmmm. Reading all
of this only sort of reinforces my original impressions that any form of
vector movement is too complicated. My own personal opinion is that cinematic
is best and vector limits the number of ships in play because you'll bog down
somewhere. I'm all for giving little ships advantages etc. but I don't
personally think vector is the way to go. Not for me anyway. Next thing you
know we'll be tilting ships on little resin stands trying to simulate 3D
movement (or gluing our ships into bits of
coke bottles - anyone else remember that old John Treadaway article for
ST in wargames illustrated? Or was it the other magazine?). Hey, it's a broad
church. I'm all for elegant simplicity which is what got me hooked in the
first place.
***That's the way I see it, simplicity in movement and game mechanics makes
for more fun. Just my personal opinion anyway.....and I like the table full of
ships......)
Don
Wow, lots of opinions. Time to de-lurk and weigh in (mass in?).
> Jon wrote:
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
C) I've actually played this with homebrew (human tech) fleets on table top
and like it. But most of my FT these days is by email with FTJava. I've played
all the human fleets, Kra'Vak, and Phalons in vector. The mechanics of FTJava
take all the drudgery out of vector. I actually prefer it to cinematic. I have
no problem with
Turn-Burn-Turn. Makes sense to me.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant),
B) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory. As Jon D. said, "Slugs in
space". If you want huge ponderous ships that make noise when they blow up,
play cinematic.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
B) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory. Same reason as above. Still
arbitrarily limits rotation in a game where the time per turn is not
specified.
One of the things I like most about FT is it's simplicity. Please don't go the
way of SFB. I remember when SFB came in a plastic bag. By the time I gave up
in disgust I was lugging around a huge
3-ring binder stuffed with rules, revised rules, advanced rules,
optional rules, rules errata, etc.
Best Regards, Bob Yeager
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
When the update come in this is all we played. What we discovered is that it
evolved more sluggish, big ships with all weapons optimised for a single arc.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant),
Never played it but have played B5 Wars and A Call to Arms. I think it's too
limiting in amount of turning.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
Of the three I like this the most. It allows thrust 6 ships to rotate 180 and
limits thrust 2 ships. My problem is that I think thrust 4 ships become the
best balance and therefore the default.
I wonder if it's too complicated to add a new system, thrusters, and take
turning out of the MD equation.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Hasn't full thrust gone the same way? The rules you need to use are
Yes, it's spread out, but it's not complex the way SFB was. If you leave out
fighters, alien tech, and special situations like orbiting,
then you could put the rules for FT onto three pages--possibly two.
Maybe we should put them on 2 pages.
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day guys,
First up answering Jon's questions.
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
Have played it with every FB fleet and a bunch of home brew besides, always
enjoyed it. Can see why others may want more distinction between ship
abilities though.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant),
Have played it, but didn't enjoy it as much as made slow ships sitting ducks
in many ways, just too frustrating and planning intensive.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
Have played it with the different FB fleets and a couple of home brews, not
bad. Little more distinction, without crippling slower ships. Do like the idea
of just doubling FT thrust (the option Oerjan spoke of) though have only
played it 3 or so times.
Now skipping over to David G's comments:
> Reading all of this only sort of reinforces my original impressions
Funnily enough we've actually always found it easier to teach and play vector
than cinematic (even with our kids). I can count on my fingers the number of
games I've had in cinematic and have managed to run into something in nearly
all of them;)
> My own personal opinion is that cinematic is best and vector limits
We've quite happily played with anything from 1 to 57 ships per player
(biggest game had well in excess of 200 ships on the floor - table being
too small). Though must admit we're strong adherents of writing squadran
orders and using the strike the colours rule so things don't hang round for
ever. We are also apt to strat limiting order writing time if we hit a time
waster;)
> Next thing you know we'll be tilting ships on little resin stands
I did it once for FT, now I leave that for a odd AV:T games;)
Have fun
[quoted original message omitted]
> -----Original Message-----
Have no fear, there is ABSOLUTELY no intention of FT going down this
route..... yes, the fact that the rules are spread across multiple books is
problem, caused by the evolution of the game over time and the fact that we
are still primarily a miniatures manufacturer rather than a book publisher
(the books are there to sell the minis, rather
than vice-versa), but that is why we are working on FT3 as a proper
all-in-one-place version. I realise that the progress towards it
probably seems glacially slow (bit of understatement here...) but it
WILL happen! ;-)
[quoted original message omitted]
Only one ring binder? That must have been a few editions back.
CJ
At least six editions back.....looking at my own shelves with "count um"3
large 3 ring binders! Yes I gave up
in disgust too........)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l How about having
the rotation rate depend on the Main Drive rating?
e.g. MD 2 alows a 2pt turn for each pt, MD6 allows 6pt turns per pt?
The lumbering MD 2 ships will still be able to turn a reasonable amount if
they use all their drive to do it, but the nippy MD 6 ships will still have a
significant turning advantage.
Steve S.
From: "Michael Brown" <mwsaber6@msn.com>
> Maybe we should put them on 2 pages.
Page 1:
http://members.quixnet.net/deboe/ftlite.rtf
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Cool:)
> Laserlight wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/5/06, Don M
> <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
Damn, I stopped when I was working on my second ring binder. :-(
Mk
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
D - with various fleets at GZG-ECC's, in various scenarios. However,
this is a preference thing, as opposed to any sort of balance issue.
(However, I've never fought / fought as Kra'Vak, where arc limitations
are so key to making the race balanced.)
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant), where
C - Somebody referred to this as 'Slugs in Space', but that's exactly
the feel of the B5 Universe, so, I enjoy it here, especially when you have the
White Stars dancing in and out and around the slow dodgy Earth Omega
Destroyers. (8-)
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
A - Sounds like a good compromise, if there was some way to cost it into
the FT system. In some sense, you would be developing two separate games: one
where everything moves cinematically, and one where some stuff moves vector
slow, some stuff moves vector fast, and some stuff moves cinematically.
And this will be my one substansive FT email for 2006. (8-)
JGH
> Doug Evans wrote:
> >HOWEVER, game-wise I'm even more fond of the variant of 3) where 1
This
> >variant retains the fire-arc/drive rating balance of the "plain 3)",
Halving the range bands and velocities, or as Scott suggested doubling the
Thrust rating - except that *thruster* pushes (ie. sideways and
backwards) are still just 1 mu per thrust point (or 0.5 mu per thrust point
using Scott's suggestion).
Later,
> Tony Christney wrote:
> 4) Modified FB1/FB2 standard - 1 thrust point rotates to any heading,
> BUT only ONE rotation maneuver allowed per turn... in other words you
> can rotate for maneuver purposes and then thrust, OR thrust and then
Granted, but in my experience the MD2 ship's much higher firepower and
stronger defences (it only spends 20% of its Mass on engines, as opposed to
40% for the MD6A ship) are usually an even more noticable
counter-advantage.
> It also gives advanced drives an advantage because they don't have to
This is *exactly* the advantage they have in current FB2 Vector - and it
isn't anywhere near enough to set them apart from the Standard drives. In FB2
Vector an MD4A drive has the same total cost and virtually the same
capabilities as an MD5 drive - the only difference is that the MD5 is
slightly *better* for accellerating straight ahead...
> For human ships, it makes multi-arc weapons useful as it allows you to
But the primary reason *to* manoeuvre is to bring your weapons to bear so
you can shoot at the enemy... and single-arc weapons give you a lot more
to
fire *with* than multi-arc weapons do :-/
Regards,
thanks for taking an interest in li'l ol' us! ;-)
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
<snippo>
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2
> c) I've actually played this (with IJSF, KV, ESU,
> Feel free to add comments as to WHY you
Reason I like it: with all the abstraction required in FT generally, it
'feels' right that this rule takes into account at least the notion of the
relevant physics; once a object is set in motion, yadda yadda.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project
> b) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory.
persuant to the above 'physics' argument, this mode doesn't model anything for
me better than the above rule (question #1); in fact, it sounds like a
handwave for a universe that has 'draggy space' or something. In 'Cinematic',
do whatcha want with PSB around turns and all, but in vector, an attempt at
modelling the actual movement of ships, simple is better.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course
Pretty much spelled this out in #2...
4) Modified FB1/FB2 standard - 1 thrust point rotates
to any heading, BUT only ONE rotation maneuver allowed per turn... in other
words you can rotate for maneuver purposes and then thrust, OR thrust and then
rotate to fire, but NOT rotate/thrust/rotate.....
Opinions?
we have argued this in our regular FT group and it comes down to whether the
duration of the turn models actual fleet movement (which we play as
simultaneous
movement/fire effects) or whether what happens on the
board is just a 'SITREP' image that shows what is going on from a great
remove; in the former case, the
ability to rotate/thrust/rotate is consistent with a
realtime-ish display (which is what _I_ prefer)
whereas in the latter case the 'snapshot' of the events displayed doesn't
really allow for the wiggling
implied by R/T/R etc movement.
ymmv.
Jeff "My dice hate me!" Fearnow Gaming to keep War out of RealTime!
"'DESTROY THE WITNESSES!!. Chaffing aside, I have no answer: I Excrete Sour
Cream!" www.wigu.com, 29 Jan 2003
DR650SM "Recon Viggie"/DOD#1890
Seen Serenity yet?
http://www.serenitymovie.com
Dunno...
Being the curmudgeon I am, I'd say the example should have an odd amount
for the final speed(velocity?). ;->=
The_Beast
Claus wrote on 01/05/2006 06:39:47 AM:
> Cool :)
> David Stokes wrote:
> An idea had occurred to me which I have not seen mentioned yet. I'm not
> convinced I think it is a good idea yet, so take it for what its worth.
> small ships able to outmaneuver them?
Using proposal "3)" and equipping your small ships with higher Thrust
Ratings than your large ships will do the trick nicely :-/
> Maybe have different rotation rates for different sized ships. As an
But how do you define "capital ships", "cruisers" and "escorts"?
If an "escort" is defined as no larger than Mass X, a cruiser is anything
between Mass X+1 and Mass Y, and a capital ship anything of Mass Y+1 or
larger, then a Mass increase of just one single point will suddenly make
the ship *much* clumsier... with the result that no-one ever builds
ships
of Mass X+1 or Y+1, while ships of Mass X or Y become extremely common.
(FWIW this is exactly why the Fleet Book design system abolished the FT2
"capital/cruiser/escort" class system.)
BTW, why should a superdreadnought with Main Drive 6 be any clumsier than a
corvette with Main Drive 2?
Regards,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/5/06, Stephen
> Scothern <scotherns@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about having the rotation rate depend on the Main Drive rating?
I like this concept. How about this:
MD 1-2 : 2 course points (60 degrees) per thrust
MD 3-4 : 3 course points (90 degrees) per thrust
MD 5-9 : 4 course points (120 degrees) per thrust
MD 10+ : 5 course points (150 degrees) per thrust
Of course, with this much manueverability, who needs advanced drives?
The Man in Black is: Kenneth Scroggins Novus Ordo Seclorum: Annuit Coeptus: E
Pluribus Unum
______________________________________
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/maninblack/dg.html
> How about having the rotation rate depend on the Main Drive rating?
hmm.. not much different then limiting the turns to 60 degrees except it frees
up MD points for higher MD ships.
Per pt MD2 turns 60 MD4 turns 120 MD6 turns 180
If you also limited the thrust available to turns to half the thrust rating it
would go father and leave it unlimited to A drive units
> On 4 Jan 2006, at 09:38, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
Prefer this option as more realistic. Power to rotate a ship is insignificant
in vector terms compared to power to accelerate. If you increase the number of
thrust points you may as well dump vector as you move away from a realistic
model. Assuming that you have a reaction drive, that is.
On 1/5/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> (the books are there to sell the minis, rather
Yes, but it's the rules that people get emotionally involved in.
> > From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
Allan G muttered:
> Yes, but it's the rules that people get emotionally involved in.
<grin> And if you *really* wanted to sell minis, you'd have pictures of them
on gzg.com.....
{...SNIP Vector Options...}
Lots of people are commenting on future ship redesigns to reflect the reality
of vector movement (no point to multiple arc weapons). Would just like to add
(as I primarily play cinematic) that redesigning as suggested would break
cinematic play. If we are going to make everything during the late KV wars
single arc (to reflect vector rotation realities) then each ship really should
have two weapons readouts... its KV all weapons FA listing and a cinematic
multiple arc listing.
I do like the comment somebody made that if it takes 1 thrust to rotate you,
it really should take 1 thrust to stop you, therefore leave the current vector
rotation rules in place but make a single rotation cost 2 thrust, not 1.
Castling: It has been brought up that castling (to steal a SFB Tourney tactic)
is quite common in Cinematic play and they fear this may creep into vector
play. My playgroup always hated this and we just made a house rule that all
ships must always have a min velocity of 1. Not realistic but in space (as we
have ZERO hit modifiers based on speed) there really is NO point to not
castling in a defense situation as you can always bear best weapons and every
turn to boot.
Large ships not being as maneuverability: While this makes sense in cinematic
play in vector play a ships maneuverability should only be limited by its
thrust. Mass really isn't a limiter in space on the scales we are talking
about here.
"I think everyone understands that it's getting better every day. Or
course, every nation that's got IEDS and drive-by shootings and suicide
bombers definitely got some security issues" -LTC Gibler, Mosul, IQ
05MAY30
You Think?
From: "Peter Thoenen"
> Lots of people are commenting on future ship redesigns to reflect
The point of this discussion is how Jon should change the vector rules such
that ships designed for Cinematic will also be viable in Vector. We do NOT
want a stable of Cinematic designs and a separate stable of Vector designs.
> Laserlight wrote:
But here's the $64 question -- can there be designed a set of ships (or
more importantly, a design system for ships) that is balanced for Cinenmatic
movement, Vector movement, and interesting enough that people can generate the
flavour they want?
I'm not sure it's possible, not without requiring people to use some common
sense and try to refrain from going all Munchkin. And I'm aware the 'these
rules need common sense, we're aware there are
loopholes' setup isn't a popular viewpoint these days. (8-)
JGH
These two statements sorta sums everything up doesn't it;)
> Laserlight wrote:
> These two statements sorta sums everything up doesn't it ;)
All the new stuff has pics - they are being done as the minis are
released; there are pics of the older ones in the pdf catalogue, and as Paul
gets the new revised store sorted out (due soon I hope) many more of them will
be on the webstore itself. I may even find the time (between making new minis,
writing the rules, packing orders etc etc) to go back and photograph the older
items that are not pictured already...
Jon (GZG)
> Laserlight wrote:
Well the picture part sure is getting better. I know a lot of people "need"
the pictures when buying (at least for the first time). So all in
all things are getting better:)
As for rules.. hmm just waiting:)
No matter what we still seem to be able to place a new order every two months
or so.. (don't tell our wifes this....)
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> of them will be on the webstore itself. I may even find the time
to
> go back and photograph the older items that are not pictured
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> The point of this discussion is how Jon should change the vector rules
Problem is, that's not really possible- if what you're looking for in
Vector is a more "realistic" movement system. If you restrict rotations in
vector to retain the viability of multiple arc weapons, you're trading
realism. You have the increased realism of (more) newtonian motion, but a
decreased realism in how ships can rotate in free space.
---
"Ah! You seen one Earth, you've seen them all."
- Jack Schmitt on the moon, Apollo 17, 118:08:10
> > I may even find the time
To be fair, there are noticably more pics than there used to be. And for some
things, it's not such an issue. If you've got 25mm Gurkhas and that's what I
want, well, I know what Gurkhas look like, and I know the minis are well done.
I could order them without seeing them. But if you have a Hellhog Tank and a
Thunderpig IFV, I don't have any idea what they look like so I'd need pics.
What about a different point system for each movement system,
specifically targeting the value of multi-arc weapons systems, which
seem far less worthwhile in Vector (or at least Vector as the rules now
stand)?
> On 1/6/06, Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
Noam:
> system. If you restrict rotations in vector to retain
Key thing is a fun game--we can all live with some degree of
less-than-realism. I think turn/thrust/turn (with unlimited
turns) detracts from a) the thought required for maneuvering, and b) the
variety of ship designs. I could nonetheless live with things the way they
are, but I would want St Jon to bless a batch of Official Vector designs.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIf you want to be
nasty you can say beam weapons can only be fired in the direction of the
primary burn as they have to stay on target for the majority of the turn to do
damage.
Roger
> On 1/6/06, laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> On 1/6/06, laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Key thing is a fun game--we can all live with some degree of
The question becomnes, what if someone(s) WANT to be able to
turn/thrust/turn, and consider it UNFUN if they can't. The problem
with trying to balance realism with fun is that while realism is to a certain
extent objective, fun is completely subjective.
Brian said
> The question becomnes, what if someone(s) WANT to be able
That's why Jon is soliciting opinions. And ideally we'll have people weigh in
next week with "you know, I wasn't sure about Proposal #X, but I tried it this
weekend and it works pretty good." Or "...and it sucks worse than inflatable
dartboards, and here's why."
Yeah, and if I had time and an opponent, I'd be willing to do so. Sadly, being
the father of an infant, I have little of the former, and that is one of the
reasons I have none of the latter.
> On 1/6/06, laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Yeah, and if I had time and an opponent, I'd be willing to
Think of this as having a built-in opponent, in a few years.
When Josh goes off to college later this year, I'll have to make an effort to
find another player.
> laserlight wrote:
But wouldn't this have the net effect of creating two sets of designs anyway?
"These are okay to play in cinematic, but, if you only want to play in vector,
you have to stick with these ones?"
I'm starting to really, really wonder if having two separate design systems,
or, at least, two separate cost systems is the only way to achieve true
balance. (i.e. a Kra'Vak ship is worth X points in Cinematic, but Y points in
Vector.)
JGH
Yeah, assuming his anti-gaminf mother doesn't sabotage the plan...
*sigh*.
> On 1/6/06, laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> On 1/6/06, Jerry Han <jhan@warpfish.com> wrote:
> I'm starting to really, really wonder if having two separate
I made the separate cost system suggestion aearlier today, still waiting to
hear any response from anyone.
> I'm starting to really, really wonder if having two separate
This works to a point. I played Silent Death heavily, and they recognized that
the rules governing how torpedoes moved greatly affected
the value of torpedo-laden ships. The problem was, as options for
torpedo rules proliferated and multiplied, the table of costs for various ship
designs got very cumbersome (Standard, Variable Speed, Homing, Variable Speed
Homing, Tough, Tough Variable Speed, Tough Homing, Tough Variable Speed
Homing, Unjammable, Unjammable Variable
Speed, ...).
> Brian B wrote:
Dang, sorry, I'm half-distracted right now, and I scanned right past
it. (8-)
But, it seems to be the way to go, simply because (as others have pointed out)
the relative worth of a larger firing arc is always going to be a factor of
how easy it is to turn. But if you make vector as slow as cinematic in terms
of turn rate, then, you eliminate one of the key things that makes vector
different from cinematic, the ability to pivot relatively quickly.
JGH
> laserlight wrote:
Jerry wondered
> But wouldn't this have the net effect of creating two sets
My first preference is to fix the system so we don't need extra designs. If
that doesn't work, though, I don't
greatly mind having separate Vector SSDs--but I want to have
an Official (or semi-official) set which is widely used by
the community (instead of 1000 homebrew designs, none of which is used by more
than four people).
From: Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com>
> If you want to be nasty you can say beam weapons can only be fired
Now that sounds very interesting. You;d need to retain a 'pointer' on the ship
after movement, which designates the direction of the Main Thrust, i.e. the
direction MD was used. Regardless of the end orientation of the ship, that
pointer points to 12 o'clock for Ship fire solutions. An alternative way of
thinking about it is executing final rotation (as plotted) *after* the ship's
fire phase. It still doesn't make FB designs optimum for
Vector, but at least justifies some off-arcs.
---
"Ah! You seen one Earth, you've seen them all."
- Jack Schmitt on the moon, Apollo 17, 118:08:10
> is to turn. But if you make vector as slow as cinematic
How about if those who can, try a game this weekend using "1 Thrust = rotate
60 degrees or accelerate 2mu"? And post an AAR.
Noam said:
> An alternative way of
What's the difference between that and "can only rotate before thrusting"?
Quoting Brian B:
> What about a different point system for each movement system,
It could be done but that is only half the battle. Cinematic designs will
still
be sub-par in vector games. They will have a lower point cost and
playing them in vector might be more balanced, but people would still want
their own vector versions of these ships so we are back to 2 sets of designs,
one for each movement system. Do we want to have 2 versions of the fleet
books?
I would like to find a way that one design would work for both movement
systems, and that is where the 1 thrust = 60 degrees rotation proposal came
from but there are players out there who don't like that limit.
Besides getting people used to unlimited rotations to try 1 thrust = 60
degrees of rotation and give some AARs, I would like to see some stats on some
vector games on the actual rotation used. What is the average amount a ship
rotates when ordered to do so? What are the maximum, minimum, and mean
rotations used in a game? How does this all relate to the thrust of the ship?
How much thrust is left unused when doing rotations? How do rotations for
manuvering with no intent to fire vary from rotations when the ship fires that
turn?
This proposal would definately effect ships with low thrust values more that
it would effect ships with high thrust values. So with current unlimited
rotations, is Thrust 6 worth the 20% mass it costs over Thrust 2? Or are ships
with T2 underpriced as they can about double their weapons load while still
keeping their primary target in their main arc most of the time.
> On 1/6/06, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my point and sdating it better than I could --
the simple fact is that any time the rule chooses to sacrifice realism for
fun, the question becomes "Whose definition of fun?"
Part of the problem with ANY movement system is that in a turn-based
game, the positions of ships relative to each other at the beginning and end
of movement is easy to determine, but the question of where everyone is in
relationship to each other at any point in time between those two points is a
little more nebulous, because we're moving ships one at a time to simulate
movement that in real life all happens at the same time. One solution I'm
pondering is the idea of allowing rotating thrusting, and firing of weapons to
be allowed in any order. Fire missions would be written into the orders the
same way that thrust or rotation are. Each Firecon system would be given a
specific order, and there would be two types of order: Target ship X with
weapon(s)Y, or Reaction Fire (Opportunity fire, etc.). There would be a couple
of limitations:
1. When any specific ship carries out its orders, if the target
specified in a fire mission is out of the range/arc, then a firing
solution was unobtainable, and that weapon/Firecon cannot be fired
that turn.
2. Opportunity/Reaction fire can be executed at any time druing the
game turn, including after the ship has finished its own orders, but only
against ships that have themselves carried out their orders or are in the
middle of doing so.
And there are some possible additions to those two rules: In situation 1, a
weapon committed to a fire mission against a specific target might be allowed
to fire on that target if that target enters
the weapon's arc/range at any time during the turn, not just when the
firing ship moves. In situation 2, you may want to reduce the accuracy of
reaction fire as opposed to dedicated fire missions.
> On Jan 6, 2006, at 1:39 PM, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu wrote:
From: "laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> Noam said:
Because you might want to drift (or thrust) at one facing, then fire in that
facing, then rotate for a burn next turn (so you don't have to pay rotation
cost next turn).
Example: Assume you have MD 4, and are facing 1 o'clock. You want to fire in
this direction, but anticipate wanting to thrust or fire in direction
4 next turn. So this turn you're going to plot "MD3/RP3" MD3 = Main
Drive 3 (in direction 1); RP3 = final rotation, by definition after fire
phase, since fire must be in the direction of the MD thrust. Thus next turn,
you may MD4 in direction 4 without having to rotate
(as opposed to having to do RP3+MD3 that turn).
Unless you want rotations to cost nothing at all, in which case only MD
direction determines fire arcs, and ship facing on the board is immaterial
(and you'd probably want to differentiate advanced drives from standard by
giving them more thrust per point, or something).
> Unless you want rotations to cost nothing at all, in which case only
Actually, I think that works out to: i) if you don't use MD, you may face in
any direction ii) if you use MD, you face in the direction of the MD burn
For an icky idea, you may rotate 2 clock facings per thrust if you don't
use MD that turn, but only 1 (or even 1/2) clock facing per thrust for
rotation if you use MD. Turn/burn/turn is possible, but you sure won't
turn far unless thrust is high. You can combine that with MD thrust gives 2 mu
per thrust applied and get a real tradeoff between turns spent on maneouvre
and turns spent on spinning and shooting.
Advanced drives can rotate more freely or simply apply MD in any direction.
Hmm... a lot of discussion on this...
A couple of ideas that I've had for vector, bear in mind one of the things I'm
trying to allow is that vector ships with reasonable drives
have a chance to dodge 6mu danger-radius placed ordnance.
Standard Drives:
# Return to the FB1 concept where the Main Drive just produces accelleration
in the direction the ship is pointing, and there are
separate 'manoeuvre' thrusters that can turn/push the ship as
described in FB1. Pushes foward ARE allowed unless otherwise mentioned.
# The manoeuvre thrusters can either be considered part of the main drive for
threshold purposes, or get their own icon (the latter would require
modification of existing ship diagrams).
Either: 1) The available manoeuvre thrust should equal ALL of the MD thrust,
if the latter, turns should cost 1 per arc. Under this scheme, a MD 4 ship
could thrust 4, then push forwards 4 times, ending up 8 mu ahead of its
predicted position. Avoiding a placed ordnance aimed exactly at its predicted
position with a 2mu margin. A MD 6 ship would be able to do a 180 degree
facing change using all of its manoeuvre.
or: 2) The available manoeuvre thrust is half the MD thrust, but turns are
cheaper, say 2 arcs (60 degrees) per manoeuvre thrust, which would allow a MD
6 ship to about face. A MD 4 ship would find not be able to avoid ordnance
with a 6mu danger radius aimed at its predicted location however. The turn
cost could be made even more generous, 3 arcs (90 degrees) would allow a MD 4
ship to reverse its facing in 1 turn.
or even: 3) as 2), but rotations are any amount for 1 thrust, however, only 1
rotation per turn. But this version still reduces the
cost-effectiveness of high manoeuvre ships.
Ships with non-standard Manouvre/Thrust ratios (as have been mooted).
As above, but the manouvre thrust is calculated as follows:
1) Use twice the thrust available for manoeuvres in cinematic (so a
5/3 drive becomes 5 MD, 6 manoeuvre).
2) and 3) Use the thrust available for manoeuvres in cinematic ( a 5/3
becomes 5 MD, 3 manoeuvre).
> "Laserlight" wrote:
c) it makes some cheesy maneuvers possible. Let's say you have a MD4 ship
pursuing a MD6 ship in direction 12. Your opponent can start out
facing you, Rotate to 12, Thrust by 4, then Rotate to 6. He spends 5/6
of his turn facing away from you, but still gets the benefit of shooting at
you with his F arc.
A couple of comments here:
Does it make sense that the ship with greater thrust rating should control the
range of the engagement? IMHO, yes.
lets look at two mass 60 hulls one with MD6 the other with MD4
hull 60 md4 12 md6 18
So, the md4 ship will have an extra 6 hull spaces to dedicate to arcs or put
in a L2 screen. It seems like an interesting tradeoff. Large arcs allow larger
ships to engage multiple targets spread across multiple arcs. The F arc ship
can only engage targets in a given arc.
I can PSB the 5/6 ths time issue by saying that you can track targets in
your aft arc but not fire at them if you fire the thrust drive.
Steven G said:
> So, the md4 ship will have an extra 6 hull spaces to dedicate to
The F
> arc ship can only engage targets in a given arc.
The point being that it is quite easy to make sure you have your target in F
arc. Granted, if you're a ig ship shooting at lots of small targets, you may
need to cover multiple arcs.
> I can PSB the 5/6 ths time issue by saying that you can track
So? If you're in my F arc 6/6 of the time, and I'm in your F arc 1/6
of the time, shouldn't you do less damage?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 1/6/06 4:09:37 PM,
gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
writes:
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question to you all.....
Well, the only thing it would "limit" would be the ability or reason to have
multiple arc weapons. U would end-up with a # of human tech ships with
"single arc" weapons...
But then I'm not normal playing vector.
Have a Good One, DOC Agren    (Lurker on the Digest)
yay FT3, keep it simple we don't need 50 rules to do, what one rule, will do
just as well, will the four major power's have their fleet's in this book or
will there be a separate fleet book. If i had just one wish for the new book
it would be a simple campaign system, and a star map, wait that's two, oh and
for three, for the book to be aviable on cd, in pdf format, that shoud get the
list talking.
> laserlight wrote:
Okay, gotcha. That makes sense. (8-)
JGH
G'day,
> The point being that it is quite easy to make sure you have your
I've heard this a lot in this thread, but thinking back of the FT games we've
had I can't think of a single one we had where having side arcs wasn't a
godsend at some point in the game (except the stern chase pursuit games). But
maybe we play at faster speeds (don't actually think so), have wider ship
formations (again don't think so) or go for more "passing games" than most.
Its "easy" to keep in F arc at range, but in all the vector games I've played
that's maybe 1 or 2 turns, after that its all in amongst each other, where
multiple arcs are a must to make sure you've got the most desirable target in
place. I don't doubt that it is easier than cinematic to have a good target in
preferrable arcs in vector (and probably to the point where some redesign
would be good of ships only for vector) but I'm not sure it's to the extent
that the "easy to makre sure they're in F arc" statements present. Pity that
"1-arc wonder" game never came off, I think that'd show that after the
odd game with all F-arc weapons people would bounce back to having side
arcs too (as evidenced by the guy who designed the Free Orange Republic
ships with p-torps out the wazoo, who had a first pass all F-arc and
then started getting more with 2 or 3 arcs or some 1-arcs offset to FP
or FS etc).
Cheers
G'day,
Just did a quick analysis of the AARs I had stored on my machine (so not
exhaustive by any means). All I did was count up the number of times a turn of
x faces was recorded in the 19 games included in the sample (note that we
right orders at squadran level so a single entry will cover many ships). The
results were as following:
The mean results were
Turn-0-face = 37%
Turn-1-face = 9%
Turn-2-face = 9%
Turn-3-face = 12%
Turn-4-face = 7%
Turn-5-face = 3%
Turn-6-face = 23%
Interestingly while the mean and median result were almost the same for 0,1,2
and 6 point facing changes the medians dropped to zero for 4 and 5
and were halved for the 3-point turns. Seems people do either just
jiggle a little to keep the nose about right, or about face. More interesting
still was looking at the number of "out of arc" statements
recorded, these were consistently 3-4 times more common for those forces
with more limited arcs (like the NAC and KV).
Oerjan may have a larger sample selection, but the best bet would be some more
games.
Cheers
Thanks for the data, Beth!
I have one question and one comment:
Question:
> More interesting still was looking at the number of "out of arc"
statements
> recorded, these were consistently 3-4 times more common for those
3-4 times more common starting from what baseline? There's a huge
difference between on one hand wide-arc weapons being out of arc 5% of
the
time while single-arcs are out of arc 15-20% of the time, and on the
other
wide-arc weapons being out of arc 25% of the time and single-arcs being
out of arc 75% of the time. (Or, to put it another way: the important data
point to compare isn't how many times the weapons *couldn't* shoot, but the
number of times they *could* shoot.)
***
Comment:
As you noted you need to get to very close ranges before there's any real risk
of not having the target in your preferred arc. In my (less extensive
than yours) Vector experience, by the time the wide-arc ships finally do
get close enough for their wider arcs to come into play they've usually
already lost so heavily to the higher long-range firepower of the
single-arc ships that the extra shots allowed by the wider arcs are no
longer sufficient to win them the battle :-(
> Oerjan may have a larger sample selection, but the best bet would be
I have very few fully-recorded Vector battles with complete shooting
data, I'm afraid. As always more data would be good!
Later,
Charles Taylor schrieb:
> # Return to the FB1 concept where the Main Drive just produces
I have nver played vector, so this is all theory, mainly argued from a physics
plausibility and general game streamlining point of view.
I too, think there should be little problem in separating main thrust engines
and rotational thrusters. Even where in configurations where the
main drive is used for rotation, there must be extra arrangements to allow it
to exert the neccessary torque. So there is no conceptual problem in costing
rotational (and sideways) thrust separately.
An additional SSD icon for the rotation ability doesn't seem overly
cumbersome.
If you want to keep the present point values, you could say that the default
rotation is the same as the main thrust and costs 0 points, while slower
turning gives you a point bonus and faster turn costs more. But aren't points
cost going to be revised anyway to remove the excessive advantage for large
ships?
To make the chance of a hit depend on the amount of rotation before the shot
sounds like a reasonable balancing mechanism, but might be too
cumbersome in play - testing this will be neccessary. The question also
is for which weapons this will be used. Or should this depend rather on the
quality of the fire control equipment?
Another question is how much this really is a problem in vector. I see
it clearly is a problem in one-on-one encounters, but with multiple
ships per side, wouldn't there be many instances where side arc weapons come
in handy?
Greetings Karl Heinz
> KHR wrote:
> Another question is how much this really is a problem in vector. I see
Side arcs are generally *less* important in encounters with multiple ships
per side than they are in one-on-one battles, because with more targets
to choose from you're more likely to have a secondary target in arc in case
your preferred target happens to be out of arc. Being able to shoot, even if
it isn't at the target you'd really prefer to hit, is worth considerably more
than not being able to shoot at all.
Regards,
> On 1/8/06, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> Side arcs are generally *less* important in encounters with multiple
I can recall a large number of times where tight-arc weapons (B3s and
PTorps) on some of my larger ships were used to make destroyers or frigates go
"poof" entirely rather than to smash up a cruiser that I really wanted to
target.
However, I'd say it was infinitely preferable to shoot the weapons at
something somewhere rather than to contribute nothing to the fight.
In a one-on-one duel, I imagine maneuvering to catch the target in
your arc might be considerably more difficult than when going up against a
squadron. But I don't recall ever seeing a single ship on a table in a game
I've played, so I can't say.
On 1/8/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Beth, your message shows why a slavish concentration on "point systems" will
fail for a certain percentage of players. (I am tempted to say, "will
ultimately fail", but I'm willing to keep an open mind that there's a point
system out there that actually works.)
It seems that, for your group wide arc weapon systems are not over priced in
vector, or are less over priced than for, say, Oerjan.
If this "price discrepancy" is "corrected", it's entirely possible that it
will fix things for some players and exacerbate the problem for other players.
So, it would seem that before fixes can be made we need to know what
percentage of players find wide arce weapons to be overpriced.
Then the tricky part comes in. What if the split is close to 50:50?
This is just one of the reasons I dislike point systems.
G'day,
> Thanks for the data, Beth!
No worries.
> 3-4 times more common starting from what baseline?
The "no enemy in any arc" comment came down roughly 10% (median 7%) of
the time for none KV/NAC, 39% (median 25%) for the NAC and 50% (median
37%) for the KV.
> In my (less extensive than yours) Vector experience,
> longer sufficient to win them the battle :-(
Looking at the break-up of out of range.
The average time that multi-arc ships spent out of range was 37% (35%
for KV ships) with median at 25% (22% for KV). The KV don't really have longer
ranges in effect (especially if you roll like me!), especially when up against
B3 or UN so that was less of an issue for us. With the SV long range ability
drastically curtailed now (but even before that) we didn't actually see a
drastic reduction in hitting power due to early long range shots. There would
be the odd dent, maybe even a system or two down on one ship if it had seen
concentrated fire, but basically you'd have a turn (or 2 in slow games) of
closing then a turn or two of deadly exchange and then another turn of medium
range fire (where cripples went down or "ok I give in" comments were carried
out) and then game over. Is that shorter and sharper than yours or just
different pattern?
Cheers
From: "Mike Hillsgrove"
> Being mostly an historical gamer, point systems have no value at all
<snip>
> larger number of lower tech newbies in space. To balance the
The points system is there so you have some idea how to adjust the numbers. If
you want a battle in which one side has a significant advantage in numbers,
you can balance the victory conditions either by using a good deal of
experience, or by a system such as that developed by Roger Burton West and
posted somewhere on firedrake.org.
Being mostly an historical gamer, point systems have no value at all to me.
Never in the history of human endeavor has a General concerned himself with
having too many points. So, my concern with this is entirely
playability and reality (in terms of physics). I also would prefer predesigned
ships
from ship books to eliminate the min-max and soap bubble garbage that
unscrupulous players can come up with. In my opinion, when GZG releases a ship
miniature, the appropriate ship status sheet should be available.
I'm also of the opinion that in a fleet game, simplicity is the key. Rather
than complicateing the matter with many multiple systems, dozens of weapons,
etc, a single PDF rating or the largest guns available on a particular ship
given size and technology would be a better game design improvement.
I would also like to see more "technology" in terms of teck levels. The better
the Teck Level, the smaller and more powerful the systems available on the
ships. A few high tech Ancient ships should be able to trounce a larger number
of lower tech newbies in space. To balance the fights, well crafted victory
conditions and adjusting the numbers are in order.
G'day,
> If this "price discrepancy" is "corrected", it's entirely possible
Well you know the old saying about pleasing all of the people...;)
Cheers
> -----Original Message-----
Usually it has been dependant on starting speeds and vectors. If high speed
and head on, there is no room for tactics; if lower speed and convergant
courses, you can attempt to out-manouevre the other side.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant),
It gave a better feel of leviathan movement endemic to the universe; B5
capital ships can't turn very well in the context of the "combat turns" used
in the tv show.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points
For thrust-4 ships and higher, this has minimal effect on movement and
appropriately penalises low-thrust ships without completely crippling
them.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
hello
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2
il will say b, because, it seen to me that the advanced grav drive (kravak
style) will be "obsolete" (french word)
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project
I say d, i play only vector, with all the fleet of the fleet book 1 and 2, and
unsc beta test.
I like this, it seem to be good, having multiple fire arc for weapons in this
mode. The Kravak with their possiblity for one thrust point will rotate any
ship to any heading, are powerfull but can be contained
But now in fact I play a variant of EFSB/FB2 that is :
1 thrust point only allows rotation by 1 course point (30 degrees). But you
can make rotation, equal to your total thrust point. like it is said in FB2 so
a thrust 6 ESU corvette can make 180° of turn in one turn. and with the fact
that only 1 thust point is possible for deceleration and lateral move in one
turn for a ship
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course
Il will say a, maybe with this, ESU dreadnought, can turn more
4) I will say b, I dont like this option
Parthian Shot Time!
> On 1/10/06, Franck Gouret <gouretfranck@yahoo.fr> wrote:
There goes the neighborhood.
> il will say b, because, it seen to me that the
Actually, we took it straight from the Latin obsoltus, past participle of
obsolscere, to fall into disuse.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Although it is a word the French need. Often. For equipment and doctrine both.
> Parthian Shot Time!
<grin> John, save that aggression for the IF. And I saw your
blog last night--keep your head down. "Being shot at and
missed" is all well and good, but "being shot at and *not*
missed" sucks. And Jen would be mad at you.</grin>
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'm kind of hoping
he is just not shot at. I wish all the soldiers over in Iraq, both American
and Iraqi, would have boring tours.
If wishes were horses we'd all eat steak.
Roger Books
> On 1/10/06, laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/10/06, Roger
> Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
It's the roadside bombs you have to worry about more than the bullets...
The Man in Black is: Kenneth Scroggins
> Novus Ordo Seclorum : Annuit Coeptus : E Pluribus Unum