_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGood day,
everyone--
Does anyone have a sense for the relative prevalence of cinematic and vector
movement in FT? I'm more intrigued by vector myself, but I'm wondering whether
I'm going to be the only one who wants to play vector, or whether there's a
handful, or it's easy to find a game either way.
Thanks,
Ken
Ken said:
> Does anyone have a sense for the relative prevalence of cinematic and
> vector movement in FT? I'm more intrigued by vector myself, but I'm
I think you'd find that more people play Cinematic, but a lot of people either
prefer Vector or are willing to go either way. Or you could just look
for players first and take what you find :-)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHi Ken,
I prefer cinematic myself and find it an easier recruiting tool for the
newbies. Vector is more scientifically accurate but I've always felt that FT
was a fun enough system without the complications.
Don
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIn our group, one
prefers vector, 3 prefer cinematic, and 3 have no preference.
Something to keep in mind, is that designs which are balanced in cinematic
might not be in vector. That's easily corrected for those who design their
own.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThat's a good
point. I also picked up the notion somewhere that an odd-numbered thrust
rating was more useful in vector movement, but can't remember where I got that
idea.
Best,
Ken
> "McCarthy, Tom (xwave)" <Tom.McCarthy@xwave.com> wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:*
{behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} In our group, one prefers vector, 3
prefer cinematic, and 3 have no preference.
Something to keep in mind, is that designs which are balanced in cinematic
might not be in vector. ThatÂs easily corrected for those who design their
own.
> Ken Hall wrote:
> Good day, everyone--
The polls I've seen suggest that roughly 35-40% prefer Vector and 60-65%
prefer Cinematic, though many play both systems.
Regards,
> Good day, everyone--
Our default was vector, though now that there's a bunch of new people we might
be moving to cinematic since that seems to be the way the new guys want to
play.
What about using the two movements together to reflect different tech levels
or styles? Has anyone done this before?
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 02:34:11PM -0700, Eli Arndt wrote:
The problem is the consequent numbers - missile and plasma bolt attack
radius. You can fudge it, but it's a bit ugly. Doubling the number of
thrust points available to vector-moving ships works quite well in some
cases.
R
I"m fairly certain someone else will pipe in shortly, but I seem to recall a
suggestion to do such a thing to mimic B5 races.
You might consider a browse of the archive, though I'm not sure how to phrase
the search.
The_Beast
RBW wrote on 07/21/2006 04:37:40 PM:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 02:34:11PM -0700, Eli Arndt wrote:
What about using the two movements together to reflect different tech levels
or styles? Has anyone done this before?
Might be interesting in a Berserker Warmachine scenario Vs a standard fleet(s)
Ooops, wasn't this how the TBP Earthforce Sourcebook did it, cine for Minbari,
and maybe, Centauri?
The_Beast
Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR wrote on 07/21/2006 05:46:44 PM:
> I"m fairly certain someone else will pipe in shortly, but I seem to
> On Friday 21 July 2006 22:34, Eli Arndt wrote:
Yes. Some guy named Jon Tuffley. :-)
See the EarthForce Sourcebook for the original B5 roleplaying game (The
Babylon Project).
(technically not FT, but it's very, very similar).
Yes, let me run out and try to find the now defunct and hard to find book
(grin). Anybody have something a little more attainable?
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> Does anyone have a sense for the relative prevalence
The couple of polls I've run over the years shows that 29% play cinematic
only, 26% play vector only and 45% play both. So its all about even really.
Cheers
We've done it for EFSB battles. It takes some getting used to, but it can be
done and give a decent game.