> You wrote:
> A man after my own heart. The people I used to play with thought it
As well as being misleading as hell if you know how to use them right.
Yesterday I played 3 games, 2 with vector, one cinematic. My opponent started
marking my ship's presumed locations too. So I decided to take advantage of
it. On the vector one that I won by a wide margin, I accelerated quite a bit
and swung around, ending up behind the enemy fleet facing it, while they were
facing away from me. Crunch. On the cinematic, I cut speed when they were
expecting me to speed up, and evaded an entire salvo of SMLs, plus their
battle line was at an average range of 3 inches from mine. Against a largely
pulse torpedo armed opponent, this is a BAD idea. I lost the other vector, but
that was just a little 500 point destroyer skirmish.:)
John Atkinson chortled:
> As well as being misleading as hell if you know how to use them right.
> Yesterday I played 3 games, 2 with vector, one cinematic. My opponent
> started marking my ship's presumed locations too. So I decided to
It helps if you mark A) next position without acceleration; then B) next
position with max acceleration (bearing in mind thrust can be in any
direction).
BTW it looks like you can have a max thrust of 11 under vector rules. "How?"
you ask. Thrust 8, burn 1 of your extra 4 maneuver points to rotate 90
degrees, then push port (or starboard) with the remaining 3 maneuver points.
Or execute the same steps in reverse order. It's not logical (the 8 Thrust
should occupy the entire length of the turn, so you don't have extra time to
push in the same direction) but it is, insofar as I can tell and until the
amendment I feel sure Jon will add about 30 seconds after reading this, legal.
> You wrote:
> It helps if you mark A) next position without acceleration; then B)
next >position with max acceleration (bearing in mind thrust can be in any
>direction).
Actually, that would take a couple dozen die per ship. And that gets a
little silly. I can do this in my head--if my opponent can't, too bad.
> BTW it looks like you can have a max thrust of 11 under vector rules.
Actually, I caught onto the flip-turn the second time I played with
vector. It's a neat trick. IMHO, doesn't require a rule because it can't
happen more than once per pass. Only useful when changing directions 180
degrees.
> Laserlight wrote:
> BTW it looks like you can have a max thrust of 11 under vector rules.
Put it like this - that's the way I've been playing the Vector rules for
some years now... not sure if any of the other FTFB playtesters have done it
like this, but I would be surprised if they hadn't.
John, it's not useful only for turning around 180 degrees - it is useful
for any vector change. Most of the time the thruster push won't coincide
exactly with the direction of the main thrust, but it usually comes
pretty close to it :-)
It gets scary for Centauri-style ships, though (those with Thruster
strength equal to Main Drive thrust) <g>
Later,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
> Who in their right mind wishes to face away from the enemy in order to
> increase speed?
Anyone who needs to get away fast, or has broadside-mounted weapons - as
many of my designs have. With broadside designs (GW Imperials, Renegade Legion
Leviathans, etc), it is *very* stupid to face the enemy <g>
> I use pulse torps, and so if I think I MIGHT be within
Start using multiple-arc Pulse Torps, then. FTFB, p.7.
Regards,
> You wrote:
> I use pulse torps, and so if I think I MIGHT be within
Too expensive tonnage-wise. I'd rather fit another battery on there
and live with the firing arc limits. I can usually end up pointing in
the right direction to hit something--even if it is a Corvette, which
I've wiped out with pulse torps before for lack of better target! The slight
lack of flexibility hasn't bit me in the butt yet, and as you may know, I've
got a fleet list already put together. As long as I don't suffer regular
crushing defeats, I try to stick to it. If I start getting beaten regularly
due to a weakness in the designs, the Imperial Navy will rethink it's design
strategy.
> On 12 Aug 98 at 18:39, laserlight wrote:
> BTW it looks like you can have a max thrust of 11 under vector
I decided to add the house rule that after moving your ship along it's current
movement track at it's current speed, you have to make
it's facing change before applying it's main thrust and/or 'push'
thrust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 12 Aug 98 at 18:39, laserlight wrote:
I went back and re-read the rule and you are right. As written, it is
perfectly legal. The relevant passage states that "unlike in cinematic
movement" thruster movement points do not reduce the number of main thrust
points available.
Was this how it was done in the EFSB? Or did they still have it where the
total of main thrust plus thrusters had to be less than or equal to the ship's
overall thrust rating?
I'm more comfortable with doing it that way and it seems like it would be the
quickest and easiest fix to what seems like an abuse of the system.
In my opinion, if you are going to try and model vector movement, a ship's
thrust rating should describe its maneuver envelope. (Actually, using a
continuous acceleration model, it would be half that during the first turn of
thrust, but let's not get into that...) No matter how it manuevers, it should
never be more than that distance from its projected endpoint. If a thrust,
turn, push maneuver lets you do something different, then your model is
broken.
The problem with these maneuvers 'outside the envelope' is an incorrect
assumption of what valid orders are. While the rules allow silly constructions
like this, common sense does not. I will try to point out how common sense in
orders will alleviate this difficulty.
If we assume you have a main drive of 8, with thrusters of 4, this would seem
to imply that my applying the full power on your main drive over the course of
the turn will change your velocity by 8 in the direction of your facing,
right? And that burning your thrusters over the full course of the turn could
push you perpendicular to your facing a maximum of 4. (again, keeping with the
magical handwaving to erase the fact that it's really only half that, but at
least staying with the same inconsistency everyone else
is.)
*Concurrent Maneuvers* Orders can be written in any sequence. That's fine and
dandy. However, it is not reasonable to assume that a MD8, TP3,PS3 will change
my vector by 11 in the direction of my initial facing. Why? Because the MD8
burn takes the entire length of the turn! Even if you assume that rotations
occur quickly and will 'give' them to me for free at the end (or even
beginning) of my
movement, the PS3 requires another 3/4 turn to execute. Now of course
everyone is screaming at me that things happen concurrently, not sequenced all
at once, but they would HAVE to be sequenced to achieve the above result.
*Vectors over time* I contend that since the MD burn is applied over the
course of movement, you will need to break the vectors down further. and apply
them in smaller increments. Move MD4, PS1.5 execute the turn, move the
remaining MD4, PS1.5. now look at where you are at. They are NOT the same
location. In
the 'massively broken' hack we began with the velocity is +11 in the
direction of original facing. In the second the velocity +6 (6.04
actually) in a direction about 30 degrees to port from the original facing.
To make it more accurate (for a continuous burn, smooth rotation over the
course of the turn) - Divide both the MD and Pushes by the points of
facing
change+1, and perform the maneuver in those discreet steps, turning one
facing between each movement. So for the above, we have 4 segments of MD
1, and 4 segments of PS 3/4. Applying these as described gives a
velocity change of right near 7 in a direction of 30 deg to port from original
facing. Note that what we have done is a simple matter of 'Successive
approximations'. Sure calculus would be more 'correct', but why bother
-
you are moving minis on the table anyway - turn and move. The point is
that it is the assumptions of what are valid orders that are causing some of
these abuses.
*Sequenced Maneuvers* OK, with that said, you say that you WANT to do
sequenced maneuvers? Fine with me. But remember that the sequence cannot be
any longer in 'time' that one turn. I propose adding a single character to the
normal order
writing conventions - "/". This separates sequenced movement.
Continuing
with the above example, you want to burn MD4/TP1/PS3+MD4, you can't.
Sorry.
But you could do MD4/TP1/PS2+MD4. Do you see why? The first step in
the sequence is MD4, that takes half the turn. The next is TP1, which I am
counting here as instantaneous (partly to ease explanation, otherwise is
should be a quarter turn), finally the last step is PS3+MD4 (first
example,
and the PS3 takes 3/4 turn to execute - BZZZZ, sorry, but your time has
expired) or PS2+MD4 (second example, and it fits within the remaining
1/2
turn).
Lasty, about correctly marking what your course is during the turn -
however you do vector movement, pick up an artists or mathematicians flexible
curve tool. It is a couple pieces of plastic that are joined with a sliding
joint, so that when you hold 2 points in appropriate directions, the piece in
between forms a smooth, continuous curve. (I guess it
approximates a real-world Bezier). The 2 points should be your initial
location and heading and the your final location and heading. For
non-complicated (and non-sequenced) movement this should give you a
fairly good approximation of where you were along your flight path. I don't
know what this tool is, but someone should. Anyone taking Topology courses?
Jared
Jeff Lyon <jefflyon@mail.utexas.edu> on 08/14/98 04:56:29 AM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Re: Marking extrapolated ship locations
> On 12 Aug 98 at 18:39, laserlight wrote:
I went back and re-read the rule and you are right. As written, it is
perfectly legal. The relevant passage states that "unlike in cinematic
movement" thruster movement points do not reduce the number of main thrust
points available.
Was this how it was done in the EFSB? Or did they still have it where the
total of main thrust plus thrusters had to be less than or equal to the ship's
overall thrust rating?
I'm more comfortable with doing it that way and it seems like it would be the
quickest and easiest fix to what seems like an abuse of the system.
In my opinion, if you are going to try and model vector movement, a ship's
thrust rating should describe its maneuver envelope. (Actually, using a
continuous acceleration model, it would be half that during the first turn of
thrust, but let's not get into that...) No matter how it manuevers, it should
never be more than that distance from its projected endpoint. If a thrust,
turn, push maneuver lets you do something different, then your model is
broken.
Jeff
> At 10:45 AM 8/14/98 -0900, you wrote:
(again,
> keeping with the magical handwaving to erase the fact that it's really
<snip lengthy examples>
Hmm, if I understand your examples, a quick hack comes to mind:
Everything is a "push"; you have main drive pushes and thruster pushes.
Because the main drive is larger and more efficient than the thrusters, it
generates a 1" push for every unit of thrust you expend.
Thrusters, being smaller and less efficient than the main drive only produce a
1" push for every 2 units of thrust you expend. (Or a 0.5" push
for every point you expend if you don't mind dealing in half-inches)
Rotation would remain the same.
You may spend any number of units of thrust up to the rating of your drive on
pushes or rotations in any order.
This should achieve what you describe quickly and easily.
Jeff Lyon asked:
[snip on using both Main and Thruster pushes]
> Was this how it was done in the EFSB?
Yes. Quoting EFSB p.75, last sentence of section "Drive Units": "Thus a ship
with thrust 6 (three drive units) can in a single turn apply up to six points
of main drive and three points of thrusters."
Regards,
> At 01:07 PM 8/14/98 -0900, you wrote:
Hmm.
Sounds like we're visualizing two different systems here. What you are
describing is two different independently-powered ship's systems; a main
drive and a set of maneuvering thrusters. What I thought we were discussing
was a single drive system which could channel its thrust through either the
main drive or the thrusters, but not both. Guess my idea is a holdover from
FT2 and the EFSB.
If it is as you describe, why not install thrusters independent of the main
drive; why limit yourself to the 1:2 ratio that exists now? Why can't I buy
extra maneuvering thrusters? In fact, what if I don't want a main
drive at all; just 360-degree maneuvering thrusters? Do we make
separate threshold checks for the thrusters independent of the main drive? Or
for each individual thruster? What if your port side thrusters are knocked
out, but the starboard ones still work?
I'm not flaming you, just brainstorming. This might be perfectly valid for
lower-tech near future backgrounds, it's just not quite what I was
visualizing.
_Almost_
Be aware however that it is both legal and reasonable to do a full burn of
the main drive, as well as full burn of the thrusters - of course, these
pushes would be perpendicular to the facing - any pilot who burns the
main drive on full and the retro thrusters on full over the course of the
entire turn should be shot. But in any case, you end up with a move of 8.94
(call it 9) which is offset from the main course a bit. But this is a far cry
from the silly idea of 11.
> At 10:45 AM 8/14/98 -0900, you wrote:
(again,
> keeping with the magical handwaving to erase the fact that it's really
<snip lengthy examples>
Hmm, if I understand your examples, a quick hack comes to mind:
Everything is a "push"; you have main drive pushes and thruster pushes.
Because the main drive is larger and more efficient than the thrusters, it
generates a 1" push for every unit of thrust you expend.
Thrusters, being smaller and less efficient than the main drive only produce a
1" push for every 2 units of thrust you expend. (Or a 0.5" push
for every point you expend if you don't mind dealing in half-inches)
Rotation would remain the same.
You may spend any number of units of thrust up to the rating of your drive on
pushes or rotations in any order.
This should achieve what you describe quickly and easily.
Jeff
> On 14 Aug 98 at 15:24, Jeff Lyon wrote:
> <snip lengthy examples>
It really is loads easier to apply facing changes before any main thrust or
lateral push thrust, and it does a *fairly* good job of limiting abuse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jeff Lyon wrote:
...Large snip...JTL
> should never be more than that distance from its projected endpoint.
If a
> thrust, turn, push maneuver lets you do something different, then your
Jeff, I understand and agree with what you are saying. The problem comes when
one point of view (yours) comes into conflict with mine
(having chosen to be the evil 'rules lawyer'.). My POV is
completely correct and valid, - Thats what the rules say/allow.
The only way out of the situation is for you to play the way that you feel is
correct to the spirit of the rules and allow me to play the way the rules are
written.
I have encountered this situation before and (at least with the G.W. crowd.)
the people who play the rules to the max need all the help they can get. Not
to go into great detail, but one of the things I do best is give those who
have the 'Perfect Invincible Army' a reality check.
Bye for now,
Well, I think we are visualizing 2 different systems, like you said. My
perception is based on how things are built now, as well as the FTFB
description on pg.3 Starting the paragraph 'Manoevering Thrusters' - "In
addition to the main drive, all ships have THRUSTERS - small drives
positioned in clusters around the ship..." In addition, the silly maneuver of
getting a velocity shift of 11 from thrust 8 drives (which started this
thread) seems to require the same interpretation.
I have never looked at EFSB (I've only seen 1 complete B5 episode - at
it
was the hokey one - life and times of 2 b5 service techs...) and the
Third
Space special - so b5 is very low on my list of influences.
Having said that, as I was starting to write my description of how to help
solve the problem, I was thinking of just what you have described - but
then realized it really doesn't encompass quite enough, and would therefore be
unsatisfactory to many (especially those who want more physics, or even
fuel requirements.) The combined Main/thruster technique you describe
is more similar to cinematic drives, while the dual system is more similar to
how we do things today. As to why not handle them separately - I think
that's just an issue of compatability. If you split the drives into 2
independant systems and buy them at varying levels, your Vector designs are
then different from your Cinematic designs - whereas now you simply use
different rules with the same designs.
But It may be interesting to accomodate your idea of a ship with no Main
Drive. Let's look at how we could do that. first start with a standard
design - when you want to use it in Vector rules, decide the split of
Main/Thruster as below.
A thrust 8 standard design, by my interpretation, is a combination of Th8
maindrive and Th4 thrusters. Take the thrust designated in the design
and double it. Use those points to 'buy' Main/Thruster points. Main
Drive
at 1/1, Thruster at 2/1. It might be fun to run around with a light
cruiser that has a Main Drive thrust of 12, but only 2 points of thruster.
Or conversely, your idea of no Main Drive - Thruster rating of 8, but no
main drive at all. In this case I would allow you use your thrusters in
place of your main drive - but every point spent turning does reduce the
thrust available for other activities. Less overall drive power, but your
can output your entire thrust in any direction you choose - might make
for some strange flight.
BTW, this also makes it easy to design Kra'vak drives - they buy
thrusters
for 1/1.
Jared Noble
Jeff Lyon <jefflyon@mail.utexas.edu> on 08/14/98 12:50:34 PM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Re: Marking extrapolated ship locations
> At 01:07 PM 8/14/98 -0900, you wrote:
Hmm.
Sounds like we're visualizing two different systems here. What you are
describing is two different independently-powered ship's systems; a main
drive and a set of maneuvering thrusters. What I thought we were discussing
was a single drive system which could channel its thrust through either the
main drive or the thrusters, but not both. Guess my idea is a holdover from
FT2 and the EFSB.
If it is as you describe, why not install thrusters independent of the main
drive; why limit yourself to the 1:2 ratio that exists now? Why can't I buy
extra maneuvering thrusters? In fact, what if I don't want a main
drive at all; just 360-degree maneuvering thrusters? Do we make
separate threshold checks for the thrusters independent of the main drive? Or
for each individual thruster? What if your port side thrusters are knocked
out, but the starboard ones still work?
I'm not flaming you, just brainstorming. This might be perfectly valid for
lower-tech near future backgrounds, it's just not quite what I was
visualizing.
Jeff
Since Thruster pushes are less efficient than main drive pushes, why not have
Thruster pushes subtract from the amount of main drive propulsion a ship can
generate in a turn. Turns can be accomplished with Gyros or thrusters, but a
thrust 8 ship using 3" of thruster pushes would only be able to use 5" for the
main drive.
That would eliminate the "11" Thrust effective problem...
> Jeff (I think) wrote:
> Was this how it was done in the EFSB?
Yes.
> Or did they still have it where the
No.
Best wishes,
---------------------- Forwarded by Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO on 03/08/99
09:24 AM
---------------------------
"Jared E Noble" <JNOBLE2@MAIL.AAI.ARCO.COM> on 08/14/98 10:45:39 AM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Re: Marking extrapolated ship locations
The problem with these maneuvers 'outside the envelope' is an incorrect
assumption of what valid orders are. While the rules allow silly constructions
like this, common sense does not. I will try to point out how common sense in
orders will alleviate this difficulty.
If we assume you have a main drive of 8, with thrusters of 4, this would seem
to imply that my applying the full power on your main drive over the course of
the turn will change your velocity by 8 in the direction of your facing,
right? And that burning your thrusters over the full course of the turn could
push you perpendicular to your facing a maximum of 4. (again, keeping with the
magical handwaving to erase the fact that it's really only half that, but at
least staying with the same inconsistency everyone else
is.)
*Concurrent Maneuvers* Orders can be written in any sequence. That's fine and
dandy. However, it is not reasonable to assume that a MD8, TP3,PS3 will change
my vector by 11 in the direction of my initial facing. Why? Because the MD8
burn takes the entire length of the turn! Even if you assume that rotations
occur quickly and will 'give' them to me for free at the end (or even
beginning) of my
movement, the PS3 requires another 3/4 turn to execute. Now of course
everyone is screaming at me that things happen concurrently, not sequenced all
at once, but they would HAVE to be sequenced to achieve the above result.
*Vectors over time* I contend that since the MD burn is applied over the
course of movement, you will need to break the vectors down further. and apply
them in smaller increments. Move MD4, PS1.5 execute the turn, move the
remaining MD4, PS1.5. now look at where you are at. They are NOT the same
location. In
the 'massively broken' hack we began with the velocity is +11 in the
direction of original facing. In the second the velocity +6 (6.04
actually) in a direction about 30 degrees to port from the original facing.
To make it more accurate (for a continuous burn, smooth rotation over the
course of the turn) - Divide both the MD and Pushes by the points of
facing
change+1, and perform the maneuver in those discreet steps, turning one
facing between each movement. So for the above, we have 4 segments of MD
1, and 4 segments of PS 3/4. Applying these as described gives a
velocity change of right near 7 in a direction of 30 deg to port from original
facing. Note that what we have done is a simple matter of 'Successive
approximations'. Sure calculus would be more 'correct', but why bother
-
you are moving minis on the table anyway - turn and move. The point is
that it is the assumptions of what are valid orders that are causing some of
these abuses.
*Sequenced Maneuvers* OK, with that said, you say that you WANT to do
sequenced maneuvers? Fine with me. But remember that the sequence cannot be
any longer in 'time' that one turn. I propose adding a single character to the
normal order
writing conventions - "/". This separates sequenced movement.
Continuing
with the above example, you want to burn MD4/TP1/PS3+MD4, you can't.
Sorry.
But you could do MD4/TP1/PS2+MD4. Do you see why? The first step in
the sequence is MD4, that takes half the turn. The next is TP1, which I am
counting here as instantaneous (partly to ease explanation, otherwise is
should be a quarter turn), finally the last step is PS3+MD4 (first
example,
and the PS3 takes 3/4 turn to execute - BZZZZ, sorry, but your time has
expired) or PS2+MD4 (second example, and it fits within the remaining
1/2
turn).
Lasty, about correctly marking what your course is during the turn -
however you do vector movement, pick up an artists or mathematicians flexible
curve tool. It is a couple pieces of plastic that are joined with a sliding
joint, so that when you hold 2 points in appropriate directions, the piece in
between forms a smooth, continuous curve. (I guess it
approximates a real-world Bezier). The 2 points should be your initial
location and heading and the your final location and heading. For
non-complicated (and non-sequenced) movement this should give you a
fairly good approximation of where you were along your flight path. I don't
know what this tool is, but someone should. Anyone taking Topology courses?
Jared
Jeff Lyon <jefflyon@mail.utexas.edu> on 08/14/98 04:56:29 AM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Re: Marking extrapolated ship locations
> On 12 Aug 98 at 18:39, laserlight wrote:
I went back and re-read the rule and you are right. As written, it is
perfectly legal. The relevant passage states that "unlike in cinematic
movement" thruster movement points do not reduce the number of main thrust
points available.
Was this how it was done in the EFSB? Or did they still have it where the
total of main thrust plus thrusters had to be less than or equal to the ship's
overall thrust rating?
I'm more comfortable with doing it that way and it seems like it would be the
quickest and easiest fix to what seems like an abuse of the system.
In my opinion, if you are going to try and model vector movement, a ship's
thrust rating should describe its maneuver envelope. (Actually, using a
continuous acceleration model, it would be half that during the first turn of
thrust, but let's not get into that...) No matter how it manuevers, it should
never be more than that distance from its projected endpoint. If a thrust,
turn, push maneuver lets you do something different, then your model is
broken.
Jeff