I'm assuming the goal of Vector is to be "more realistic" than cinematic...
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.
I like this because in vector movement ship facing shouldn't matter.
Directional momentum is preserved and that seems to be a good thing to make
the game "more realistic" then cinematic. 1 thrust point to change heading
seems like a reasonable trade off to handle the mechanics of an actual change
of facing: apply rotational acceleration, coast until almost reaching desired
heading, and apply rotational deceleration. Higher mass ships have
proportionally larger thrust engines so the cost to change facing is
proportionally higher which also seems "more realistic" than cinematic.
I see how the turn burn turn tactic and the implications on ship design are an
uncomfortable problem
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). b) I haven't
played this but dislike it in theory.
If a change in heading is: apply rotational acceleration, coast until almost
reaching desired heading, and apply rotational deceleration then the 30 degree
restriction doesn't make sense.
3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60 degrees). b) I
haven't played this but dislike it in theory. Same problem as # 2.
4) If you are using thrust points as a proxy for a measure of time then
maybe the 30/60 degree limit could work. The first thrust point starts
and
stops the change of heading and handles the 30/60 degree change of
heading. For each additional thrust points burn time the ship can continue to
rotate
in "coast mode" 30/60 degrees.
Hi Jon,
Hope you managed to have a pleasant break over Christmas/New Year.
Regarding Rotation and Vector movement:
> 1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1
> c) I've actually played this (with XXXX fleet(s) - please specify) and
I've played this using an ESU destroyer squadron vs FB1 designed frigates and
corvettes (as convoy raiders). We actually missed the mod in FB2 in the
first game and allowed MD Max Thrust AS WELL AS 1/2 MD Turn and Push.
That
worked ok as well. Much prefer the FT/FB1/FB2 standard though.
This feels right for Human tech. If you followed the Kra'Vak thread recently,
the problem seems to be that there is little advantage for Alien A drives as
the Vector rules currently stand. The Phalons and SV appear to have sufficient
armour to balance this (I haven't done the math as they don't interest me that
much), but the poor old KVs, the great threat to Sol, etc, don't, and are out
ranged to boot, and so get their hro'kol* handed to
them on a plate as their ships are un-armoured and un-shielded.
This seems to me to be the bit that needs addressing, especially as the A
drives are supposed to be that much superior to Hu'man tech.
If the A drives are supposed to be some sort of Gravatic drive, would a fix
allow them to bleed off vector speed as per their rating before they maneuver?
ie a Thrust 6 drive can bleed off 6 MU of velocity, if required, before doing
a Thrust 6 in another direction. This would flatten the final Vector triangle
and make the A drive ship more maneuverable. This is off the top of my head
and I have no idea if this would unbalance the game.
> 2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant),
> b) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory.
As others have stated, this really hammers the few Thrust 2 ships around, and
freighters.
> 3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60
This is a possible fix for my earlier concern regarding the Alien tech drives,
especially if it only applies to hu'man drives.
Hope this helps,
> Oerjan wrote:
> Scott's suggestion).
Just to clarify: my (untested) suggestion was to keep all movement costs
as-is, but simply double THR rating. So a THR-6 ship has the equivilent
of 12 points of thrust in vector. Maintains the quality of vector movement,
but increases the *quantity* of movement. I think this should be combined with
some sort of limit on rotation, but to be fair I'd have to play around with
them more to really have a strong opinion.
> The rotating thing is what determines how easy it is to keep the enemy
<snip>
> This - the weapon arc vs engine power balance in Vector - is the main
Well put! <thumbs up>
Another PSB rationale for limiting rotation: in some settings, how fast you
can rotate a ship might depend not just on your engines & thrusters, but also
on how many Gs your crew can take without turning into jelley. Which in turn
depends on 1) how far your crew is from the center of the ship, and 2) on the
strength of your inertial dampers (or whatever rubber science you use). For
#1, small ships have an advantage; for #2, ships with higher THR ratings would
presumably have stronger inertial dampers, and so would have an advantage.
So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that large ships with low THR ratings
should have a harder time rotating than smaller ships with high THR ratings.
No need to add a variable for ship size, since that's already included in the
cost of the engines. But charging for rotation by heading changes seems to
make sense, as it "rewards" high THR ships.
I'm sure others could (and have) come up with equally valid rationales for
*not* limiting rotation. <shrug> To me it's really more a question of game
balance, and I'm just looking for ways to justify the PSB.
Scott "I'll be in my bunk" Field
> Brian B wrote:
> The question becomnes, what if someone(s) WANT to be able to
:shrug: That's what house rules are for. Simply remove that
restriction and re-design all your ships for single-arc vector fire.
But the official published rules need to strike a balance between realism &
fun. (I know I'm restating the obvious here.) Myself, I'm all for realism as
long as it still makes for a fun game, but I'd hate to see FT unbalance itself
too far in one direction.
Scott "What reinforcements?" Field
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/6/06,
> wscottfield@comcast.net <wscottfield@comcast.net> wrote:
You know, the obvious flip-side response is:
Q: "What if someone DOESN"T want to do turn/thrust/turn and considers it
unfun if others do?"
R: ":shrug: That's what house rules are for. SImply invoke that restriction
(etc)"
:-)
M 'devils advocate' k
> Indy wrote:
> > > The question becomnes, what if someone(s) WANT to be able to
Granted. My point (as others have stated) was that the rules have to strike a
balance between realism and fun, leaving room for people to tweak things in
either direction. But I acknowledge that "balance" is another subjective term.
Which I think brings us back to the purpose of
Jon's poll: what do *most* people want to do. ;-)
BTW, on the mail-vs-forums debate: the only advantage I see to forums is
that for people like me who get the digest option I frequently find
myself inadvertantly "me too"-ing to posts other people have already
answered. With a forum, if I see in the digest that an interesting
conversation is going on I can go direct to the board to follow the
discussion in near-real-time. But that's a small thing; if it really
bothered me, I could always go back to getting my mail direct.
Scott "Can't please all the people all the time..." Field