1) Some time ago I saw and considered the cited page an attack, and I'm not
putting quotes around that. Not entirely well thought out one, as they make
FT into a hex-based game, without bothering to mention the fact. Usual
apples and oranges repost seems quite in keeping.
2) The word new should have been in quotes also, as I've seen the game being
demo'd and tested for quite some time, if this is the former Delta
V,
not to be confused with the SPI product of the same name. However, it is newly
released. MSRP of $55, by the way.
3) Thanks, Roger; I was going to reply the same, but was having trouble
getting in textbook writing mode. ;->=
All and all, I find the game's producers folks I've little respect for, and
probably will avoid in the future.
The_Beast
I have a few comments on this. For the record, my connection with Attack
Vector consists of having playtested some early drafts, and having
watched (on the sfconsim-l and ten-worlds-development mailing lists) as
the game and background developed. As such, I don't speak from a privileged
position, but I might have some background material which could be useful.
For reference, the PDF file under discussion can be found, as posted in a
previous message, at
<http://www.adastragames.com/downloads/vms_vs_dv.pdf>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004, Doug Evans wrote:
> 1) Some time ago I saw and considered the cited page an attack, and I'm
> not putting quotes around that. Not entirely well thought out one, as
Not quite. The actual comparison was made between AV and the Vector Movement
System (VMS) developed by Chris Weuve and Arius Kauffman, which
is a hex-based system. The confusion arises from the words "ft-style"
used to describe VMS. VMS is FT-style only in that it lumps in
displacement and velocity, and was actually designed as an alternate movement
system for Babylon 5 Wars (its creators were playtesters for B5W and suggested
the system as an alternative to the system that was eventually used, in an
attempt to demonstrate that a vector movement system didn't have to be
complicated).
AV itself is a hex-based game, but translates fairly well to a non-
hex-based format, as it actually uses what are effectively 12 directions
of thrust (well, more, since it's 3D by default, but that's an entirely
different area of debate). The particular article to which you're referring
was Ken's response
to a statement by either Chris or Arius on sfconsim-l that tracking
displacement wouldn't result in any real difference in where the ship would
end up, and was an example designed to show that there are cases that it
would. Full Thrust was not mentioned at all during that particular debate, and
its inclusion into the PDF is mostly for
familiarity -- more people have heard of FT than will ever hear of the
VMS, and the two systems are more similar than different when compared against
AV. Of course, the three systems (AV, VMS, and FT) are more similar than
different when compared against pretty much *any*
non-vector
movement system, something that Ken is quite willing to admit.
> 2) The word new should have been in quotes also, as I've seen the game
Quite true. AV was previously DV, and has been in development for some time,
although it has changed greatly since its early days (and even since the file
referred to was created). Its scale has changed, it's gone entirely 3D, and AV
is really not the same game as DV except for a) the background names, b) the
idea of using as accurate as possible Newtonian
movement, and c) an emphasis on being as close as possible to real-world
physics (albeit not real-world engineering).
> All and all, I find the game's producers folks I've little respect for,
> and probably will avoid in the future.
That's something on which I must disagree with you, although that disagreement
says nothing about either you, him, or I except that we have different
personalities. Personally, I've found Ken to be polite, articulate, and very
good at what he does. His game may not be for everyone, and he is quite
willing to admit that it is not for everyone. The intent of the game is to
target the combined market segments of the SFB crowd who prefer a detailed
game of only a few ships, realism nuts who prefer the physics to be as
accurate as is possible, people who appreciate the elegance of the system
(whatever your opinions on the game itself, the underlying systems and,
especially, the play aids, do a superb job of sweeping a lot of incredibly
nasty math under the carpets so that the players don't have to deal with it),
and those who enjoy the game background (probably a small market share, as
essentially no one but the developers have even heard of it). AV really
doesn't compete with FT, nor the reverse. I've found the two games to be
different enough that, while I may play both, there's
never really a choice as to which I want to play at a particular time --
I'm either in the mood for something quick or something detailed.
It was not my intent to be offensive in any of this, simply to clear up some
points which I think were being misunderstood, partly because there was a lack
of clarity in the links pointed to. I hope that I have not caused any offence
in writing this, as I have enjoyed greatly being a
I stand mostly corrected.
The_Beast
Me too...
My main interest was in the stealth logic and also a game that seems to want
to avoid having WWII naval in space, I mentioned the VMS v Vector article
because it mentioned Full Thrust.
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004, Christopher Downes-Ward wrote:
> Me too ...
I have to admit that I was surprised to see any mention of AV on this list.
I'm somewhat excited to see the actual game (some of the components involved
are quite interesting, and a part of me would like to try to use
box minis as cheap and easy-to-transport alternatives for when I'm too
cheap or lazy to buy/assemble/paint actual miniatures....
> My main interest was in the stealth logic and also a game that seems to
The AV logic on stealth is a defensible one. With current detection abilities,
the only thing that's going to provide a possibility of
stealth is either extremely long engagement ranges (multiple-AU) or
tactical FTL (if the ship travels faster than its emissions, you suddenly have
stealth again). Of course, PSB can also justify pretty much any stealth
assumptions. Star Cruiser (the 2300AD space combat game, which I think someone
mentioned) uses a combination of both. While there isn't actually tactical FTL
in the game scale, the drive used *is* the FTL drive and, as such, has the
wonderful feature of not being a reaction drive (and thus being considerably
less detectable than a reaction drive). The game also uses fairly long
detection ranges, and a slight lack of information as to how good modern
detection capabilities are (which, since it was published
before the full capabilities CCDs and computer processing were well-
known, is reasonable). A point which was specifically considered by AV (and
Full Thrust) is that detection is not the same as identification. Since in AV
(as I recall, but may be out of date on) a merchant transfer drive is (now)
fairly similar to a warship transit drive (the merchant drive just lacks
the high-thrust tactical combat "gear"), detecting a drive flare doesn't
necessarily tell you what type of ship you're dealing with. This is
essentially what FT's "black globe on the board" does as well
-- until a) you get close enough for imaging, or b) the target lights up
active sensors, or c) you get enough information on the target's drive to
identify it (which may or may not be possible, but I'm including by analogy
with today's identification of submarines on roughly similar principles), you
can't tell what you're facing. If there is a reaction drive involved, you can
get the *mass* of the target, but that still may
not let you tell a 100,000-ton warship apart from a 100,000-ton
freighter before getting fairly close. As such, stealth still exists in the AV
universe (and could still exist in FT), but it changes form. Instead of trying
to conceal the existence of your ship, you can try to make it look like
something harmless. I don't specifically recall any of the Ten Worlds powers
designing a warship class with the same (rough) mass and transit drive
characteristics of a common merchant ship, but it's something that could be an
interesting choice.
As for fighters, I'm afraid I have to stand at least mostly behind
the write-up on them in AV. Of course, I don't use fighters in Full
Thrust when I play it, and that's part of the reason. In "realistic" space
combat games, fighters become useful when small ships can carry weapons that
can kill big ships as effectively as the weapons carried by big ships. At that
point there's no reason to build big ships, unless
it's to carry smaller ships, and you get something like a fighter/battle
rider situation. It's hard to justify having fighters and battleships in the
same universe (although FASA's Renegade Legion gave it a good try), but since
the purpose of having both in FT is for fun rather than for realism, and since
fighters *do* add to the fun quotient for some people, it makes sense to have
them.
Wow, that was long. I guess I really want to avoid doing any more work on my
honours thesis right at the moment.
-Brian Quirt
***
In "realistic" space combat games, fighters become useful when small ships can
carry weapons that can kill big ships as effectively as the weapons carried by
big ships. At that point there's no reason to build big ships, unless
it's to carry smaller ships, and you get something like a fighter/battle
rider situation.
***
While this describes thoughts similar to my own about using fighters, there is
always a transitional period between 'paradigms'. The pilots take time to
train, the planes to build, the strategies to develope, and all of these
improve over a period from when marginally useful to battlefield dominance.
And in WWII, the battlewagons still had plenty of other uses after
out-of-sight battles became almost the norm.
Of course, you can always limit fighters by claiming very limited numbers of
suitable candidates for pilots, and swabbies are common as dirt. I know
of several pilots that would agree. ;->=
The_Beast
> On Monday, Mar 15, 2004, at 13:42 Europe/London, Doug Evans wrote:
> 2) The word new should have been in quotes also, as I've seen the game
It is the same game - the name was changed because Fantasy Flight got
to press first with their 'Kim's Game' Delta-V
> As such, stealth still exists in the AV universe (and could still
In another discussion on the 10 Worlds list, a warship drive has orders of
magnitude better performance than a freighter's. Freighters don't shoot at
warships unless they are suicidally depressed. Noone would build a warship
with a freighter drive because it may look harmless, but would end up being
totally useless.
> At 9:16 AM -0700 3/17/04, <s666@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
One could argue that some ships do in fact have warship level drives. Usually
they're fast transports or private yachts.
For stealth conditions, rating drive thrust/mass ratings in an easy
manner would be good for info for the opposing player trying to solve what the
other ship is.
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004, s666@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> As such, stealth still exists in the AV universe (and could still
> of magnitude better performance than a freighter's. Freighters don't
I may be a few editions off, but as I recall the improved performance was
largely in two areas.
1) The warships had considerably more delta-v. This was largely an
economic thing, but it meant that a freighter couldn't actually run away,
since it could always be caught. Of course, this would be unlikely to be
detectable except by measuring fuel use. 2) The warships had a drive which
would work for both transit and combat (transit at 0.05g or so, combat at much
higher thrust and fuel use), whereas freighters only had a drive capable of
transit thrust. Thus, a freighter couldn't actually ever dodge effectively, it
simply didn't have the thrust. This, again, *might* (I don't recall) not be
obvious until the warship used a non-transit thrust.
In such circumstances, there could be a clear difference in effectiveness,
without that difference being obvious. I don't recall if that's still the
state of the 10 Worlds (it was once, a long time ago, and may be now, but I
don't remember). Either way, it's a defensible way to run things, and it does
allow for some stealth. Of course, such stealth isn't very useful in the 10
Worlds, where there are so few spacefaring nations (10 total inhabited
planets, total population <1
billion, of those planets only 7-8 divided into 2-3 power blocs have
native spacefaring capability), but it could be useful in a universe life the
GZGverse.